Individual Voir Dire is the Ideal Way to Weed out Bias and Prejudice

Voir dire is the process by which potential jurors are questioned by either the judge or a lawyer to determine their suitability for jury service. Contrary to popular belief, the fundamental purpose of voir dire is not to select appropriate jurors, but rather to eliminate potential jurors who have strong bias and prejudices that will be harmful to a party’s case.

The actual procedures for voir dire vary widely from state to state. For example, not all states recognize the exercise of peremptory challenges as a legitimate purpose of voir dire. Other differences include the number of peremptory challenges each side gets, the requirements to strike for cause, and whether judges or lawyers conduct the questioning for voir dire.

In Minnesota, a relatively rare method of voir dire is about to be used in an upcoming trial. In a few weeks, Glenn Johnson’s trial for the fatal stabbing of two of his neighbors on March 17, 2018 will begin. Mr. Johnson is facing first-degree murder charges. Minnesota Court Rules of Criminal Procedure specify that the preferred method for first-degree murder cases is individual voir dire.

For individual voir dire, a single member of the venire is questioned out of the presence of the other prospective and selected jurors. Using this process, it usually takes about a week to choose a jury of 12 to 15 people. In some cases, the jury selection process takes longer than the actual trial.

In Minnesota, since a first-degree murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole, the importance of weeding out biased and prejudiced jurors is extremely important. Advocates for the process of individual voir dire argue that this in-depth analysis of each individual person gives lawyers a full portrait of that person’s background and thinking processes. Therefore, it is the optimal way to expose bias and prejudice.

This line of thinking is most evident in Connecticut. While individual voir dire is relatively rare, several states allow for it at the trial judge’s discretion in capital trials. However, Connecticut is unique in that individual voir dire is a constitutional guarantee for all civil and criminal trials. Opponents of the system argue that it is time consuming, unnecessary, and unique to Connecticut. They argue that Connecticut should adopt the group voir dire system used in all other states.

However, while group voir dire leads to shorter jury selections, the primary aim of voir dire is to weed out biased and prejudiced jurors. Several studies indicate that individual voir dire is the best way to do this. One study found that bias in potential jurors best revealed via individual sequestration. Another found that individual voir dire results in more complete and candid responses without any significant increases of time.

Further, group voir dire requires asking leading questions, while individual voir dire allows for the asking of open-ended questions. Leading questions rely on potential jurors to identify their own biases. However, asking open ended questions allows for lawyers to better understand a potential juror’s bias. While it is possible to ask open ended questions in group voir dire, there is the possibility that a potential juror will “infect” the entire venire with inappropriate comments or opinions. This possibility is nullified by individual voir dire by its very nature.

Minnesota’s use of individual voir dire in first-degree murder trials to weed out bias and prejudice is valiant due to the severity of the punishment a defendant faces if they are convicted. I had never heard of individual voir dire before I read the article about Glenn Johnson’s upcoming murder trial. This process immediately piqued my interest and I felt compelled to research it further. I was surprised to find out that Connecticut uses the process in all civil and criminal trials. Connecticut’s use of this procedure appears to be the best way to weed out bias and prejudice—the primary purpose of voir dire. At the very least, all states should adopt the use of individual voir dire in capital and life sentence cases. Ideally, states should consider allowing individual voir dire in all civil and criminal cases.