In the state of California, Voir Dire is an essential component of trial preparation as it involves the questioning of prospective jurors to learn about their particular qualifications, biases, and any other factors that would prevent the seating of a fair and impartial jury. Voir Dire rules are outlined under Sections 222.5 through 223 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and this phase of the trial can have a significant impact on the successful advocacy for your client in a court of law.
Voir Dire questions should be a liberal and probing examination of all jurors who may be participating on a jury panel.
Seeking a Fair and Impartial Jury
The primary objective of Voir Dire is to seat a jury that will listen to all testimony and weigh the facts of the case without bias or influence. Impartiality of jurors is crucial to conducting a fair trial and that’s why trial counsel representing both litigants and the judge overseeing the case are permitted to ask questions of prospective jurors to determine if these individuals have any biases or conflicts of interest that might impair the ability to make a decision based solely on the facts presented during the trial and assess these facts according to the law.
The Attorney’s Role in the Voir Dire Process
Jury questionnaires are common as they are important for understanding how potential jurors may come into the case with a particular mindset before hearing any of the testimony that will be presented in the court. Oral and direct questioning is also a part of the voir dire phase. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 222.5 permits attorneys to question jurors about their personal beliefs, relationships, and past experiences related to the facts of the trial that may impact that juror’s ability to be impartial.
The court’s instructions that govern voir dire questions allow for attorneys to have reasonable time to conduct oral questioning of prospective jurors.
The Trial Judge’s Role in the Voir Dire Process
During this process, the trial judge in the case continues to maintain control of the proceedings and attorneys from both sides should be given suitable leeway to ensure that only an impartial juror is seated in every instance. The presiding judge may set reasonable limits prescribed for regulating voir dire by preventing either counsel from asking questions may be deemed irrelevant or have been previously asked and answered.
The California Supreme Court strongly recommends that the judge’s sound discretion refrains from placing heavy restrictions on voir dire in order to allow both parties to conduct meaningful and thorough questioning of every potential juror.
Challenges for Cause
Attorneys representing both parties have the right to challenge any potential juror “for cause”. If either counsel feels there is a legal reason supported by evidence of bias, personal prejudice, any other beliefs, or conflict of interest that would prevent the juror from remaining impartial during the trial.
Legal Reasons to Challenge for Cause
There are a number of reasons why either side may choose to challenge a potential juror for cause, such as prior knowledge regarding the facts of the case or a relationship with a member of either side in the trial or their counsel.
The following are among the most common legally accepted challenges for cause:
Actual Bias
If a juror freely admits that he or she cannot or will not be impartial due to personal beliefs or prejudice.
Implied Bias
Counsel could challenge a juror because he or she has some kind of relationship or previous interaction with one of the attorneys or another individual such as a family member connected with either side in the trial.
Personal Hardship
If being seated on the jury would result in a juror experiencing economic hardship, if the juror provides essential care to a family member, or the juror has a medical condition that would otherwise interfere with that juror serving for the duration of the trial, that could result in a challenge for cause.
Inability to Follow Applicable Law
If a juror freely indicates that he or she is unable to apply the law as instructed during the trial, that could result in a challenge for cause.
A challenge for cause can be issued by either attorney and the presiding judge is within his or her right to deny that challenge. Should the attorney still wish to have that juror removed, a peremptory challenge may be issued.
Peremptory Challenges
The major difference between a challenge for cause and a peremptory challenge is that the latter allows either party to remove a juror without providing any reason. There are limits on the number of jurors that may be removed through peremptory challenge.
The number of challenges allowed per side varies depending on the type of case.
For criminal cases, the number can also vary with death penalty cases allowing for twenty peremptory challenges per attorney , non-capital felony cases allowing for ten peremptory challenges per attorney, and misdemeanor cases allowing for six peremptory challenges per attorney.
Civil cases allow for six peremptory challenges per attorney.
Although peremptory challenges allow each side to remove jurors without giving any specific reason for the removal, they do not permit counsel to remove any prospective juror on the basis of protected characteristics like gender, race, ethnicity, or other such characteristics that could be considered discriminatory against a juror.
Batson/Wheeler Challenges
If either counsel believes that opposing counsel has issued a peremptory challenge for discriminatory purposes such as a juror’s race or ethnicity, a Batson/Wheeler challenge can be raised in objection.
But in order for the challenge to be taken under consideration, it must be supported by a prima facie case demonstrating how the juror has been a victim of discrimination. If the judge allows the challenge to stand, opposing counsel must offer a reason for the juror’s removal that is not discriminatory due to protected characteristics.
After both parties have presented their arguments, the judge hands down a decision – the juror may remain in the jury pool or be removed.
Zealous Representation
The Voir Dire process is vital for the zealous representation of your client. An impartial jury is the backbone of our legal system and conducting a smart and effective Voir Dire can ensure that your client has the best chance for a successful legal outcome.
The Law Office of Fahim Rahman understands the importance of Voir Dire and his expertise in questioning jurors to determine their impartiality has served his clients well. He has represented clients in both criminal and civil cases and his experience with this critical phase of the legal process has put him at the forefront as an expertly qualified trial attorney.