DOJ-OGR-00005219.jpg
704 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
704 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document argues for the necessity of individual, sequestered voir dire conducted by legal counsel, in addition to the Court. It contends that this method is more effective at uncovering potential juror bias, especially in cases with significant pretrial publicity, by fostering a more conversational and less intimidating environment that encourages honesty. The text cites legal precedent and academic research to support the claim that attorney-led questioning yields better results for seating a fair and impartial jury.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Davis |
Cited in a legal precedent: "Davis, 583 F.2d at 196–97."
|
|
| Moran | Author |
Cited in a footnote as an author of "Jury Selection in Major Controlled Substance Trials: The Need for Extended Voir ...
|
| Cutler | Author |
Cited in a footnote as an author of "Jury Selection in Major Controlled Substance Trials: The Need for Extended Voir ...
|
| Loftus | Author |
Cited in a footnote as an author of "Jury Selection in Major Controlled Substance Trials: The Need for Extended Voir ...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned throughout as the entity conducting legal proceedings, specifically voir dire.
|
Relationships (2)
Attorney
→
professional
→
Juror
The document states that "Attorney-conducted questioning bridges the status gap between the humble layperson and the honorable judicial officer" suggesting attorneys can create a more equal dynamic for jurors to speak candidly.
Judicial officer
→
professional
→
Juror
The document describes jurors being in a "subordinate position" to the "honorable judicial officer exalted high above the venire," which can heighten their reluctance to be candid.
Key Quotes (1)
"merely going through the form of obtaining jurors’ assurances of impartiality is insufficient [to test that impartiality]"Source
— unspecified (from citation)
(Used to argue that a superficial examination of jurors is inadequate for ensuring impartiality.)
DOJ-OGR-00005219.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,113 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 14 of 17
for the court’s evaluation, ‘merely going through the form of obtaining jurors’ assurances of impartiality is insufficient [to test that impartiality]’) (citation omitted).
Because it is extremely likely that prospective jurors have been exposed to potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity, specific, individual voir dire is required. Davis, 583 F.2d at 196–97. To increase the likelihood that any hidden prejudices of the jurors will be uncovered, to accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory challenges, and to ensure that a fair and impartial jury is empaneled in this case, counsel should be given an opportunity to individually examine prospective jurors.
Individual sequestered voir dire conducted jointly by counsel and the Court has a variety of benefits. It invites a conversation rather than posing an interrogation. It eliminates the pressure on jurors to provide socially desirable or acceptable answers in a group setting, reduces conformity pressures that can diminish candor, and removes the risk of other jurors being influenced by statements made during group voir dire that enable them to either stay on the jury or be removed for cause. It increases juror comfort, minimizes the anxiety of public speaking, encourages candor, and promotes honesty.
Furthermore, questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further hampers the ability to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a subordinate position heightening their reluctance to be candid. Attorney-conducted questioning bridges the status gap between the humble layperson and the honorable judicial officer exalted high above the venire. Research indicates that expansive voir dire yields greater revelations of juror bias;³ and in-depth attorney-conducted voir dire combined with individual sequestered voir dire elicits greater
³ See, e.g., Moran, Cutler & Loftus, Jury Selection in Major Controlled Substance Trials: The Need for Extended Voir Dire, 3 Forensics Reports 331 (1990).
13
DOJ-OGR-00005219
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document