Jurywork Systematic Techniques
Chapter 1. What Is Jurywork?
§ 1:1. Introduction
§ 1:2. How do courtroom conditions affect voir dire?
§ 1:3. Jury composition: Are jury pools representative?
§ 1:4. Venue: Can a fair trial be had in the original trial jurisdiction?
§ 1:5. Using social science research approaches to understand jurors' perspectives
§ 1:6. Voir dire and jury selection
§ 1:7. Sample materials for specific types of cases
​
Chapter 2. Improving Voir Dire Procedures
§ 2:1. Introduction: Why improvements are necessary
I. Factors Affecting Juror Candor
§ 2:2. Psycho-social dynamics of the courtroom
§ 2:3. The voir dire interview
§ 2:4. Jurors' opinions and attitudes
§ 2:5. --Prejudgment
§ 2:6. --Prejudicial attitudes
§ 2:7. ----Bias against criminal defendants
§ 2:8. ----Bias against plaintiffs in tort actions
§ 2:9. ----Implicit racial bias
§ 2:10. Instructions about legal rules cannot cure bias
II. Remedies
§ 2:11. Restructuring the voir dire
§ 2:12. --The role of the judge
§ 2:13. --Precedent for alternative procedures
§ 2:14. ----Individual examinations of jurors
§ 2:15. ----Questioning conducted by the attorney
§ 2:16. ----Intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges
§ 2:17. ----Jurors' self-assessment not adequate
§ 2:18. ----Questions tailored to the case
§ 2:19. Authorities for specific areas of questioning
§ 2:20. --General attitudes
§ 2:21. --Case-specific issues
§ 2:22. --Jurors' experiences and acquaintances
§ 2:23. --The "crisis" in tort litigation
§ 2:24. Removing “set aside” and “rehabilitation” from the voir dire tool box
§ 2:25. Additional peremptory challenges
§ 2:26. Procedures for exercising peremptory challenges
III. Strategies for Obtaining Improvements
§ 2:27. Form and content of motions and arguments
§ 2:28. Sample voir dire motion: Criminal case - drug conspiracy
§ 2:29. Sample voir dire motion: Civil case - Contract dispute
§ 2:30. Arguments for improved voir dire procedures
§ 2:31. Recommendations from the Federal Judicial Center
IV. Making the Best of Limitations on Voir Dire
§ 2:32. Special considerations when only the judge asks questions
§ 2:33. The 15-minute voir dire
§ 2:34. Treat voir dire as a chance to learn about the jurors
§ 2:35. Successful cause challenges require open-ended and closed-ended questioning
§ 2:36. Enlist help from the judge
§ 2:37. Keep track of time
§ 2:38. Assess individual jurors and the group as a whole
§ 2:39. Reserving jury selection issues for appeal
​
Chapter 3. Questionnaires to Improve Voir Dire
§ 3:1. What are voir dire questionnaires?
§ 3:2. Voir dire questionnaires are not a substitute for voir dire or an advocacy tool
§ 3:3. When to use voir dire questionnaires
§ 3:4. Convincing the judge to use a questionnaire to improve voir dire
§ 3:5. --Sample motion to use a voir dire questionnaire
§ 3:6. --Supporting the motion
§ 3:7. --Jurisdictions where juror questionnaires have been used
§ 3:8. --Selected cases where written questionnaires have been used to supplement voir dire
§ 3:9. ----Civil cases in federal courts
§ 3:10. ----Criminal cases in federal courts
§ 3:11. ----Civil cases in state courts
§ 3:12. ----Criminal cases in state courts
§ 3:13. Don't be afraid to ask for a questionnaire: You might be pleasantly surprised
§ 3:14. Methods for using voir dire questionnaires
§ 3:15. Designing a voir dire questionnaire
§ 3:16. --Forms of questions
§ 3:17. --Formatting tips
§ 3:18. Sample basic questions
§ 3:19. --Juror background
§ 3:20. --Experiences with the courts
§ 3:21. --Relationships and attitudes towards law enforcement
§ 3:22. --Criminal justice experiences
§ 3:23. --Experiences and attitudes towards lawsuits
§ 3:24. --Questions for a case with publicity
§ 3:25. --Case description for a civil case
§ 3:26. --Hardship questions
§ 3:27. --Privacy question
§ 3:28. --Questions about parties, attorneys, witness list
§ 3:29. --The juror's signature
§ 3:30. Sample questions for commercial litigation
§ 3:31. --Business attitudes and experience
§ 3:32. --Contracts
§ 3:33. --Patents
§ 3:34. --Professional negligence
§ 3:35. Sample questions for employment litigation
§ 3:36. Sample questions employment litigation--Supervisory experience
§ 3:37. Sample questions for employment litigation--Workplace experiences
§ 3:38. --Sexual harassment
§ 3:39. --Age discrimination
§ 3:40. --Race discrimination
§ 3:41. Sample questions for personal injury cases
§ 3:42. --Products
§ 3:43. --Asbestos
§ 3:44. --Injuries, damages
§ 3:45. --Punitive damages
§ 3:46. --Psychological problems
§ 3:47. Sample questions for criminal cases
§ 3:48. --Alcohol
§ 3:49. --Capital punishment
§ 3:50. --Sexual assault
§ 3:51. Sample questions on juror’s use of internet and social media
​
Chapter 4. Batson and the Discriminatory Use of Peremptory Challenges in the 21st Century
§ 4:1. Introduction
§ 4:2. Pre-Batson opinions
§ 4:3. The Batson decision
§ 4:4. Batson's legacy
§ 4:5. Appellate and post-conviction review
§ 4:6. The three steps to a successful Batson challenge
§ 4:7. Step 1: Establishing a prima facie case
§ 4:8. The struck juror must be a member of a cognizable group
§ 4:9. --Race and gender
§ 4:10. --Ethnicity and national origin
§ 4:11. --Religion
§ 4:12. --“Color,” racial sub-groups or a combination of groups
§ 4:13. --Sexual orientation
§ 4:14. --Expanding cognizable groups
§ 4:15. --Making a clear record of the juror’s group membership
§ 4:16. The strike must give rise to an inference of discrimination
§ 4:17. Speculation by the trial court is prohibited
§ 4:18. Factors courts consider
§ 4:19. --The “pattern of strikes”
§ 4:20. --The history of discriminatory conduct
§ 4:21. --A single strike
§ 4:22. --The group membership of trial participants
§ 4:23. --The number of seated members of the cognizable group
§ 4:24. --Other evidence establishing a prima facie showing
§ 4:25. Comparative juror analysis at Step 1
§ 4:26. Waiver of a strike
§ 4:27. When is Step 1 moot?
§ 4:28. Step 2: The strike proponent explains the strike
§ 4:29. The strike opponent must object on all grounds before the Step 2 ruling
§ 4:30. Explanations that may be inadequate as a matter of law
§ 4:31. --Refusal to state or inability to recall a reason
§ 4:32. --General denial of discriminatory motive
§ 4:33. --Inherently discriminatory explanations
§ 4:34. --Disproportionate impact on the cognizable group
§ 4:35. Courts’ indulgent attitude toward inherently racial reasons
§ 4:36. Step 3: The court’s ultimate determination
§ 4:37. The legal standard
§ 4:38. Legally insufficient explanations going to credibility
§ 4:39. --Explanations unrelated to the case to be tried
§ 4:40. --Explanations based on the juror’s demeanor
§ 4:41. --Cognizable group members seated or still in the venire
§ 4:42. --Accusing the strike opponent of violating Batson
§ 4:43. --False, pretextual, unsupported or post-hoc explanations
§ 4:44. --Mistake as a non-pretextual reason
§ 4:45. Comparative juror analysis for assessing credibility
§ 4:46. --The method
§ 4:47. --Judicial willingness to tolerate a “laundry list” or shotgun approach undermines the analysis
§ 4:48. --The split of authority
§ 4:49. Analyzing mixed motives at Step 3
§ 4:50. --The three approaches
§ 4:51. --Courts should reject “mixed motives” and adopt the racially tainted approach
§ 4:52. Remedies
§ 4:53. Anticipate discriminatory peremptory challenges before jury selection begins
​
Chapter 5. The Law of Jury Composition Challenges
§ 5:1. Introduction
§ 5:2. Stages of the selection system
§ 5:3. Legal bases for jury challenges
§ 5:4. Legal bases for jury challenges Federal constitutional claims
§ 5:5. Legal bases for jury challenges--Federal constitutional claims--Fair cross section
§ 5:6. ----Equal protection
§ 5:7. --The Federal Jury Selection and Service Act
§ 5:8. --State constitutions and statutes
§ 5:9. Jury challenges: The applicable rules
§ 5:10. --Adequacy of the source lists
§ 5:11. ----Statutory authority for multiple lists
§ 5:12. ----Source list discrimination
§ 5:13. --Random selection
§ 5:14. ----Random selection under the federal act
§ 5:15. ----State rules requiring random selection: New Jersey as an example
§ 5:16. ----Return rate of qualification questionnaires
§ 5:17. ----Nonrandom summoning
§ 5:18. --Constitutional challenges to the qualification process
§ 5:19. --Summoning and impaneling
§ 5:20. --Proportional limitation or tokenism
§ 5:21. --Grand jury issues
§ 5:22. ----impanelment
§ 5:23. ----Selection of the foreperson
§ 5:24. Proof of a prima facie case
§ 5:25. --Cognizable groups
§ 5:26. --Significant underrepresentation
§ 5:27. ----Composition of the community
§ 5:28. ----Composition of the jury pool
§ 5:29. ----Standards for measurement and evaluation of disparities
§ 5:30. ------Absolute disparity
§ 5:31. ------Comparative disparity
§ 5:32. ------Proportion of the eligibles
§ 5:33. ------Statistical significance test
§ 5:34. ------Substantial impact
§ 5:35. Rebuttal
§ 5:36. Practice and procedure
§ 5:37. --Timeliness
§ 5:38. --Standing to challenge
§ 5:39. --Affirmative civil suits
§ 5:40. How courts and jury administrators can avoid challenges
§ 5:41. --Challenger's entitlement to discovery
§ 5:42. --Disclosure obligations of courts and jury systems
§ 5:43. --The burden of information production
§ 5:44. --Jury system transparency
§ 5:45. ----Data collection
§ 5:46. ----Data reporting
​
Chapter 6. Preparing and Conducting a Jury Challenge
§ 6:1. Introduction
§ 6:2. Preliminary study
§ 6:3. The motion
§ 6:4. The right to discovery in federal courts
§ 6:5. The right to discovery in state courts
§ 6:6. What should a discovery motion cover?
§ 6:7. Performing a composition study: Arranging experts and logistical concerns
§ 6:8. Performing a composition study: Designing and setting limits on the study
§ 6:9. Performing a composition study: Sources of pool composition data
§ 6:10. Performing a composition study: Studying the qualification process
§ 6:11. The court hearing
§ 6:12. Azania challenge described: A defense expert summarizes his analysis of the pool’s unrepresentativeness
§ 6:13. Sample materials from Azania v. State of Indiana--Table of contents: Petitioner’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
§ 6:14. --Systematic underrepresentation of jurors from Wayne Township: Affidavit of Professor Joseph B. Kadane
§ 6:15. --Chart: Allen County Indiana population, age 18+
§ 6:16. --Chart: Allen County African-American population, age 18+
§ 6:17. --Charts: Wayne Township jury pool representation
§ 6:18. --Chart: Allen County registered voters by township
§ 6:19. --Chart: Allen County juror limit problem
§ 6:20. --Chart: Truncation error problem
§ 6:21. --Chart: Systematic underrepresentation of Commissioner District
§ 6:22. --Amended petition for post-conviction relief
§ 6:23. Sample materials from federal petit jury challenge (W.D. Texas, 1978): Affidavit of local attorney in support of discovery motions
§ 6:24. Materials from federal petit jury challenge (W.D. Texas, 1978): Motion to dismiss and for discovery concerning jury selection pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1867(f)
§ 6:25. Materials from federal grand jury challenge (N.D. Georgia, 1980): State of facts in support of a request for a hearing
​
Chapter 7. Change of Venue
§ 7:1. Introduction
§ 7:2. The decision to move for venue change
§ 7:3. Federal constitutional standard
§ 7:4. The Impact of Skilling
§ 7:5. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—Rule 21(a)
§ 7:6. Grounds of prejudice
§ 7:7. --Publicity
§ 7:8. --Community attitudes
§ 7:9. Remedies and the right to choice of venue
§ 7:10. Timing of the motion
§ 7:11. Realistic goals of the motion to change venue
§ 7:12. The hearing on a motion to change venue
§ 7:13. When the judge wants to "try to pick a jury"
§ 7:14. If the motion is denied seek alternative relief
§ 7:15. Venue and voir dire
§ 7:16. Creating a record of actual juror bias
§ 7:17. Interlocutory appeals
§ 7:18. Civil actions
§ 7:19. Sample declaration in support of motion to change venue
§ 7:20. Sample declaration--Qualifications
§ 7:21. --Introduction
§ 7:22. --Media analysis
§ 7:23. --Survey results
§ 7:24. --Remedies
§ 7:25. --Conclusion
​
Chapter 8. Gathering Data for Pretrial Motions on Juror Bias
§ 8:1. Introduction
§ 8:2. Content analysis of media coverage
§ 8:3. --Presentation
§ 8:4. --Procedures
§ 8:5. Community witnesses
§ 8:6. --Presentation
§ 8:7. --Collecting community witness statements
§ 8:8. --Sample affidavit
§ 8:9. Analysis of litigants' economic role in the trial jurisdiction
​
Chapter 9. Tools for Discouraging Juror Internet Use
§ 9:1. Juror Internet use: an increasing problem
§ 9:2. Judicial response
§ 9:3. Sources of the problem
§ 9:4. Best practices to reduce juror Internet misconduct
§ 9:5. Voir dire questions to reveal and reduce juror Internet use
§ 9:6. Expand judge’s instructions on Internet use
§ 9:7. Use a juror responsibilities pledge
§ 9:8. Recommended instructions on electronic media
§ 9:9. Sample judicial instructions: New Jersey, Arizona and Oregon
§ 9:10. --New Jersey jury instruction on social media
§ 9:11. --Arizona model jury instruction on social media
§ 9:12. --Multnomah County, Oregon jury instruction on media
​
Chapter 10. Community Opinion Surveys: A Powerful Research Tool for Litigators
§ 10:1. Community surveys: A major tool of social research
§ 10:2. Using opinion surveys to assess venue or support a change of venue motion
§ 10:3. Using opinion surveys in planning for voir dire and jury selection
§ 10:4. Using opinion surveys to improve case presentation
§ 10:5. Logistical issues in designing and conducting a community opinion survey
§ 10:6. Data analysis and presentation
§ 10:7. Sample questionnaire excerpts
​
Chapter 11. Pretrial Mock Jury Research: Mock Trials and Focus Groups
PART I. USES OF PRETRIAL MOCK JURY RESEARCH
Introduction
§ 11:1. Highlight non-lawyers' responses to the case
§ 11:2. Create the narrative story of the case
§ 11:3. Uncover moral, psychological, and emotional issues
§ 11:4. Identify areas and approaches for discovery
§ 11:5. Inform jury selection strategies
§ 11:6. Prepare for settlement conferences
§ 11:7. Limitations of mock jury research
§ 11:8. Sample case: How mock trial research changed trial approach in a contract dispute
PART II. MOCK JURY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
§ 11:9. Assure demographic balance and confidentiality
§ 11:10. Define the research goals
§ 11:11. Choose the research format
§ 11:12. The presentations must be balanced
§ 11:13. Focus on content, not form
§ 11:14. Emphasize clarity
§ 11:15. Effective presentation of testimony
§ 11:16. Conducting mock jury research without consultants: There are drawbacks
§ 11:17. Moderator’s opening remarks set the tone
Part III. Mock Jury Research Materials
Introduction
§ 11:18. Research materials
§ 11:19. Mock juror recruitment questionnaire and specifications
§ 11:20. Mock juror confidentiality agreement
§ 11:21. Re-screen jurors at the beginning of the research
§ 11:22. Questionnaires exploring mock jurors’ backgrounds and attitudes
§ 11:23. Moderator’s introduction and overview
§ 11:24. Case specific reaction questionnaires
§ 11:25. Jury instructions and verdict form
Appendices
​
Chapter 12. The Summary Jury Trial
§ 12:1. What is a summary jury trial?
§ 12:2. Summary jury trial procedures
§ 12:3. Where are summary jury trials in use?
§ 12:4. Appropriate cases for summary jury trials
§ 12:5. Pros and cons of summary jury trials--Settlement rates
§ 12:6. --Objections to jurors' role in summary jury trials
§ 12:7. --Is the summary jury trial verdict a good predictor of trial outcome?
§ 12:8. --Are summary jury trial decisions based on "theatrics?"
§ 12:9. How do summary jury trials impact subsequent proceedings?
§ 12:10. Case example: Summary jury trial in a toxic tort case
§ 12:11. --Preparing for the summary jury trial
§ 12:12. --Conducting the summary jury trial
§ 12:13. --Jury deliberations
§ 12:14. --Interviews with the jurors
§ 12:15. --Settlement
​
Chapter 13. Post-Trial Interviews with Jurors
Introduction
§ 13:1. Why conduct post-trial interviews?
§ 13:2. --Evaluate key witnesses
§ 13:3. --Test effectiveness of case themes
§ 13:4. --Understand trends in similar cases
§ 13:5. --Challenge a verdict
§ 13:6. --Protect a verdict
§ 13:7. ----Sample interview protocol
§ 13:8. ----Sample juror declaration
§ 13:9. When and how to conduct post-trial interviews
§ 13:10. --Jurors' willingness to participate
§ 13:11. --Assistance from the judge
§ 13:12. --Making an appointment
§ 13:13. --Format of the interview
§ 13:14. Who should conduct a post-trial interview?
§ 13:15. Structure of the interview
§ 13:16. Legal restrictions on post-trial interviewing
§ 13:17. --Searching for juror misconduct vs. focusing on attorney education
§ 13:18. --Federal district court rules restricting or prohibiting post-trial juror interviews
§ 13:19. --The Catch-22 of rules prohibiting post-trial contact with jurors
§ 13:20. --Jurors' right to freedom of speech
​
Chapter 14. Trial Presentation Graphics
§ 14:1. Two rules for using graphics in the courtroom
§ 14:2. Using graphics in the courtroom: How mediators, judges and jurors benefit from the use of visual aids
§ 14:3. Design principles 101
§ 14:4. Graphical elements: Background, color, text and images
§ 14:5. Timeline
§ 14:6. Organization chart
§ 14:7. Flowchart
§ 14:8. Illustrations
§ 14:9. Statistical graphics
§ 14:10. How to display demonstratives
§ 14:11. Finding the right designer
§ 14:12. Getting the most out of the trial graphics vendor
​
Chapter 15. Witness Preparation
§ 15:1. Introduction: Why preparation is necessary
§ 15:2. First impressions in the courtroom
§ 15:3. --People rely on stereotypes to categorize other people
§ 15:4. --Identify stereotypes jurors might apply to the witness
§ 15:5. What counts in impression formation?
§ 15:6. --Physical appearance
§ 15:7. ----What to wear in court
§ 15:8. --Behavior
§ 15:9. ----What makes witness testimony believable?
§ 15:10. ----Non-verbal cues used to detect lying
§ 15:11. ----Credibility is in the eye of the beholder
§ 15:12. --Defensiveness
§ 15:13. ----Common cues to defensiveness
§ 15:14. --Visual dominance
§ 15:15. --Posture
§ 15:16. --The use of language and voice
§ 15:17. ----Powerful and powerless speech
§ 15:18. ----Persuasive speech
§ 15:19. --Competence
§ 15:20. Preparing to prepare a witness
§ 15:21. --Talking to witnesses about witness preparation
§ 15:22. --Witness fears about preparation
§ 15:23. --Introducing yourself to the witness
§ 15:24. Witness preparation begins with an interview
§ 15:25. --Establish rapport
§ 15:26. --Observe and assess the witness
§ 15:27. ----How does the witness process information?
§ 15:28. ----What emotional tone does the witness bring to the interview?
§ 15:29. ----Be aware of anxieties and fears
§ 15:30. ----The arrogant witness
§ 15:31. --Content of the witness preparation interview
§ 15:32. ----Common anxiety-producing thoughts
§ 15:33. ----Common negative thinking patterns
§ 15:34. --Ask the witness to role play the cross examiner
§ 15:35. Witness preparation techniques
§ 15:36. --Empowering the witness
§ 15:37. --Preparing for direct examination
§ 15:38. ----Evaluating the witness
§ 15:39. ----Giving feedback to the witness
§ 15:40. ----Shaping effective witness testimony
§ 15:41. --Preparing for cross-examination
§ 15:42. --Using a trial consultant
§ 15:43. ----Protecting confidentiality
§ 15:44. --How long does it take to prepare a witness?
§ 15:45. --Final words for the witness
§ 15:46. Special circumstances: Child witnesses
§ 15:47. --Similar to and different than adults
§ 15:48. Goals of child witness preparation
§ 15:49. Preparing for court
§ 15:50. Special circumstances: Child witnesses--Preparing for court--Preparing for direct examination
§ 15:51. ----Preparing for cross examination
§ 15:52. Reducing potential for harm to the child
§ 15:53. Final words on child witnesses
§ 15:54. Special circumstances: non-English speaking witnesses
§ 15:55. Non-English speaking witnesses--Juror biases
§ 15:56. Preparing the non-English speaking witness
§ 15:57. Final thoughts on translated testimony
​
Chapter 16. Modern Jury Trial Practices: Tools to Enhance Juror Comprehension
§ 16:1. From innovations to best practices
§ 16:2. --The need for improved jury trial practices
§ 16:3. ----How jurors learn
§ 16:4. --Trial participants' views of trial complexity
§ 16:5. --Juror comprehension aids have been adopted across the nation
§ 16:6. --National Program to Increase Citizen Participation in Jury Service
§ 16:7. Evaluation research in the courts
§ 16:8. --Massachusetts tests 16 innovations
§ 16:9. --Los Angeles County tests six innovations
§ 16:10. --Tennessee tests 13 innovations
§ 16:11. --Ohio tests 13 jury innovations
§ 16:12. --New York tests 10 jury practices
§ 16:13. --Seventh Federal circuit tests seven concepts
§ 16:14. --Court research on specific practices
§ 16:15. ----Wyoming looks at juror comprehension of instructions
§ 16:16. ----New Jersey and Colorado examine allowing jurors to submit questions for witnesses
§ 16:17. ----Juror questions in civil cases in New Jersey
§ 16:18. ----Juror questions in criminal trials in Colorado
§ 16:19. Mini-openings--Research findings
§ 16:20. --Implementation and authority
§ 16:21. Juror note-taking--Research findings addressing practitioners' concerns
§ 16:22. --Implementation and authority
§ 16:23. Notebooks for jurors--Implementation and authority
§ 16:24. Allowing jurors to submit questions to witnesses--Research findings addressing practitioners' concerns
§ 16:25. --Implementation and authority
§ 16:26. --Frequently asked questions
§ 16:27. Aiding juror comprehension of the law
§ 16:28. --Substantive preliminary instructions
§ 16:29. --Oral instructions both before and after closing arguments
§ 16:30. --Providing deliberating jury with final instructions in writing
​
Chapter 17. Conducting Voir Dire
§ 17:1. Voir dire techniques
§ 17:2. --Eliciting bias
§ 17:3. --Structuring the questions
§ 17:4. --Encouraging juror candor
§ 17:5. Avoid giving mixed messages to jurors
§ 17:6. Clarify what it means to be “fair” in voir dire
§ 17:7. Steps to navigating the truth vs. duty trap
§ 17:8. Jurors learn what is expected from what they see and hear in voir dire
§ 17:9. Laying the groundwork for successful cause challenges
§ 17:10. --A general approach
§ 17:11. --Controlling the atmosphere
§ 17:12. --Developing a cause challenge requires both open-ended and closed-ended questioning
§ 17:13. --Arguing for cause
§ 17:14. Areas of questioning
§ 17:15. --Setting the stage
§ 17:16. --Juror background questions
§ 17:17. ----Occupation
§ 17:18. ----Children
§ 17:19. ----Neighborhood
§ 17:20. ----Education
§ 17:21. ----Military experience or connections
§ 17:22. ----Religion
§ 17:23. ----Spare time activities
§ 17:24. ----Previous jury experience
§ 17:25. --Questions about exposure to pretrial media coverage
§ 17:26. --Questions about racial attitudes
§ 17:27. --Questions about racial prejudice--Racism and racial prejudice
§ 17:28. ----Interracial contacts and social distance
§ 17:29. ----Language and cultural differences
§ 17:30. --Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim sentiment
§ 17:31. ----Components of Anti-Arab/Anti-Muslim prejudice
§ 17:32. ----Tools to help Identify Prejudice
§ 17:33. ------Types of prejudice
§ 17:34. ------Punitiveness
§ 17:35. ------Immigration
§ 17:36. ------Social distance
§ 17:37. ------Questions about prejudice
§ 17:38. ------The Anti-Muslim prejudice scale
§ 17:39. ----Trial preparation note
§ 17:40. --Questions about sexual orientation
§ 17:41. ----AIDS/HIV
​
Chapter 18. Selecting a Jury
§ 18:1. Introduction
§ 18:2. Plan a jury selection strategy
§ 18:3. --Analyze case presentations
§ 18:4. --Identify potential juror biases
§ 18:5. ----Use "juror profiles" with caution
§ 18:6. ----Consider the impact of jurors' attitudes, beliefs, and values
§ 18:7. ----Consider jurors' personality traits
§ 18:8. ----Include jurors' formative prior experiences
§ 18:9. --Available data about jury panelists
§ 18:10. ----Public records search
§ 18:11. ----Internet and social media research
§ 18:12. ------Practical Considerations
§ 18:13. ------Ethical Considerations
§ 18:14. ----Responses to voir dire questionnaires
§ 18:15. ----Responses to voir dire questions
§ 18:16. ----Observations of panelists' behavior
§ 18:17. --Voir dire procedures
§ 18:18. ----Clarify the judge's voir dire practices
§ 18:19. ----Motions to improve voir dire procedures
§ 18:20. ----Voir dire procedures checklist
§ 18:21. --Organizing the jury selection process
§ 18:22. ----Use a team approach
§ 18:23. ----Allocate responsibilities within the team
§ 18:24. --Practice voir dire
§ 18:25. Use in-court time and effort efficiently
§ 18:26. --Use voir dire to get information, not give speeches
§ 18:27. --Observe jurors' dress and demeanor
§ 18:28. --Process and evaluate the juror questionnaire responses
§ 18:29. Evaluating jurors' biases
§ 18:30. --Use the data gathered by your team
§ 18:31. --Consider alternative juries, and jury-room dynamics
§ 18:32. Exercise challenges strategically
§ 18:33. Use rating systems to compare individual jurors to the group
§ 18:34. The authoritarian personality: A helpful concept for juror evaluation
§ 18:35. --Authoritarianism and criminal trials
§ 18:36. --Authoritarianism and civil trials
§ 18:37. --Identifying authoritarian attitudes in the courtroom
§ 18:38. Nonverbal behavior can reveal personality characteristics or attitudes
§ 18:39. --Interpreting nonverbal behavior
§ 18:40. --Observing nonverbal behavior
§ 18:41. Take group dynamics into account in evaluating jurors
§ 18:42. --Leaders
§ 18:43. --Followers
§ 18:44. --Fillers
§ 18:45. --Negotiators
§ 18:46. --Holdouts
§ 18:47. --Subgroups
§ 18:48. A sample juror evaluation
§ 18:49. A sample jury selection in a criminal case
§ 18:50. --Jury selection strategy
§ 18:51. --The prospective jurors: Day 1
§ 18:52. --The prospective jurors: Day 2
§ 18:53. --The outcome
​
Chapter 19. Personal Injury Litigation
​
Chapter 20. Commercial Litigation
​
Chapter 21. Civil Rights, Discrimination, and Employment Litigation
Introduction
§ 21:1. Juror biases and stereotypes in civil rights and discrimination cases
§ 21:2. --Improving voir dire procedures - particularly important in civil rights and discrimination cases
§ 21:3. --A practical approach to voir dire in discrimination cases
§ 21:4. ----A "less is more" approach to questioning
§ 21:5. ----What is discrimination?
§ 21:6. ----Negative answers to voir dire questions present an opportunity
§ 21:7. ----Preparation makes a difference
§ 21:8. ----Jurors who say "I don't really know the details"
§ 21:9. ----Explore the impact of jurors' experiences
§ 21:10. ----Avoid stereotyping jurors
§ 21:11. Race issues in jury trials
§ 21:12. --The impact of racial attitudes
§ 21:13. --Benefits of using juror questionnaires
§ 21:14. --Voir dire about race issues
§ 21:15. --Voir dire about race discrimination
§ 21:16. Voir dire in employment discrimination cases
§ 21:17. --Answering jurors' questions
§ 21:18. --Attitudes toward supervisors and managers
§ 21:19. --Discrimination in employment and hiring
§ 21:20. --Damages for employment discrimination
§ 21:21. Sex discrimination
§ 21:22. --Sexual harassment
§ 21:23. ----Voir dire questions
§ 21:24. ----Written juror questionnaire
§ 21:25. ----Sample plaintiff's motion to improve voir dire in a sexual harassment case
§ 21:26. Disability discrimination: Juror attitudes and voir dire questions
§ 21:27. Age discrimination: Juror attitudes and voir dire questions
§ 21:28. Improved voir dire procedures in an employment discrimination class action
§ 21:29. --Voir dire questionnaire for screening jurors in an employment discrimination class action
§ 21:30. Sample voir dire: Age discrimination and anti-Semitism
§ 21:31. --Background questions
§ 21:32. --Voir dire questions to explore attitudes and experiences
§ 21:33. Police misconduct
§ 21:34. Police misconduct voir dire questions: Associations, contacts, ideas about police
§ 21:35. Police misconduct--Sample voir dire: Wrongful death
§ 21:36. ----Juror background
§ 21:37. --Police brutality and policy accountability
§ 21:38. --Sample voir dire: Wrongful death--Racial bias
§ 21:39. ----Civil lawsuits, injury, and damages
§ 21:40. ----Ability to apply and follow the law
​
Chapter 22. Criminal Defense: Practice Tools
§ 22:1. Introduction
§ 22:2. Voir dire checklist
§ 22:3. Juror attitudes toward crime and criminal justice: Voir dire questions
§ 22:4. --Personal experience with crime
§ 22:5. --The crime problem generally
§ 22:6. --The criminal justice system and crime
§ 22:7. --Views about defendant's legal protections
§ 22:8. Sample voir dire questionnaires
§ 22:9. --Sample questionnaire: Savings and loan fraud
§ 22:10. --Sample questionnaire: Self-defense case
§ 22:11. Sample papers: Improving voir dire procedures in a child sex abuse case
§ 22:12. --Motion and memorandum in support of motion for written juror questionnaire
§ 22:13. --Sample juror questionnaire: Child sex abuse case
§ 22:14. Sample questions for criminal case questionnaires or voir dire
§ 22:15. --Contact with courts and crime
§ 22:16. --Attitudes about crime and violence
§ 22:17. --Involvement with children
§ 22:18. --Teenagers
§ 22:19. --Religion
§ 22:20. Special issues in gun cases
§ 22:21. --Voir dire questionnaire for a gun case
§ 22:22. --Voir dire questions for a gun case
§ 22:23. Jurors' experiences with drugs
§ 22:24. Juror views about informants and undercover agents
§ 22:25. --Voir dire questionnaire covering informants
§ 22:26. --Voir dire questions on informants
§ 22:27. Cultural differences
§ 22:28. Insanity defense and exposure to mental health professionals
§ 22:29. Domestic violence cases
§ 22:30. --Analysis of issues in a sample domestic violence case
§ 22:31. --Juror attitudes: Voir dire areas for domestic violence cases
§ 22:32. --Personal experience with domestic violence
§ 22:33. --Media or other exposure to domestic violence
§ 22:34. --Attitudes toward domestic violence victims
§ 22:35. --Assumptions about self-defense
§ 22:36. --Ability to follow the law of self-defense
§ 22:37. --Lifestyle issues
§ 22:38. --Psychological complexity and personal responsibility
§ 22:39. DUI cases: Driving under the influence
§ 22:40. --Juror background characteristics relevant to DUI cases
§ 22:41. ----Related training or education
§ 22:42. ----Spare time activities
§ 22:43. ----Military experience
§ 22:44. ----Law enforcement associations
§ 22:45. --DUI: A general voir dire
§ 22:46. --Exploring jurors' driving experiences in a group voir dire
§ 22:47. --Contact with law enforcement while driving
§ 22:48. --Law enforcement credibility
§ 22:49. --Traffic accidents
§ 22:50. --Alcohol and DUIs
§ 22:51. ----Alcohol cause challenge questions
§ 22:52. ----Intoxilyzers, blood alcohol tests, and field coordination tests
​
Chapter 23. Death-Qualifying Voir Dire: Understanding It, Challenging It, Improving It
PART I. DEATH PENALTY VOIR DIRE IS UNIQUE
§ 23:1. Overview
§ 23:2. The death qualifying voir dire
§ 23:3. Pretrial motions
PART II. PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND TACTICS
§ 23:4. Motions to limit death-qualification
§ 23:5. Racial impact of death qualification
§ 23:6. Challenging use of peremptory challenges to exclude death-scrupled jurors
§ 23:7. Improving voir dire procedures
§ 23:8. Other voir dire issues to address in pretrial motions
PART III. VOIR DIRE STRATEGIES
§ 23:9. Conducting voir dire in death penalty cases
§ 23:10. --Death-qualification and death penalty attitudes
§ 23:11. --Questioning death penalty supporters
§ 23:12. ----Preserving the record
§ 23:13. --Questioning death penalty opponents
§ 23:14. --Questions for a voir dire questionnaire in a death penalty case
§ 23:15. --Questioning designed to understand the death penalty attitudes of death qualified jurors
§ 23:16. --Challenging for cause strong death penalty supporters
§ 23:17. The Colorado method
§ 23:18. --Start by rating jurors’ death penalty attitudes
§ 23:19. --Assuring that jurors treat each other with respect
§ 23:20. --Questions about the charges and the defense
§ 23:21. --Ask the judge to explain there is no presumption of guilt
§ 23:22. --“Strip Away” extraneous assumptions and irrelevant facts
§ 23:23. --Questioning strategy
§ 23:24. ----Re-stripping the prospective juror
§ 23:25. ----Questioning to challenge
§ 23:26. ----Questioning to defend against government challenge
§ 23:27. ----Teaching jurors how to leave jury room with a life verdict
PART IV. BACKGROUND: LEGAL HISTORY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEACH
§ 23:28. Witherspoon v. Illinois and Wainwright v. Witt
§ 23:29. Marshaling evidence to challenge death-qualification: Background
§ 23:30. Early studies demonstrating conviction-proneness
§ 23:31. Empirical studies of death-qualified subjects
§ 23:32. Hovey v. Superior Court: A state supreme court confronts the problem of bias
§ 23:33. --The studies: Endorsement of their validity
§ 23:34. --The Hovey remedy: Sequestered voir dire during death-qualification
§ 23:35. Lockhart v. McCree
§ 23:36. --Critique of the court's evaluation of social science data