The voir dire process in jury selection, in which the prospective jurors are questioned about their possible biases in the case, has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. This article discusses psychological research and its implications for the conduct of the voir dire. The research indicates that individual, sequestered, open-ended questioning on issues directly relevant to the trial is the superior method for uncovering bias in prospective jurors. Furthermore, adversary attorneys appear to have a modest edge over judges in the detection of prejudice. The author notes that these findings must be balanced against other interests served by the voir dire process
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.