Exposing Bias or Prejudice to Establish a Basis for a Challenge for Cause
One of the main purposes of voir dire examination is to gather relevant information to establish a basis for challenges for cause against unwanted jurors.[1] Voir dire examination is done to protect the parties right to an impartial jury by exposing any improper juror biases which would give rise to disqualification of the juror that possesses the bias or prejudice.[2] In order to protect this right and discover any bias or prejudice, voir dire allows counsel to question the potential jurors about specific views that would prevent them from serving their duty as jurors as they were instructed. As such, counsel is to frame their questions in a manner that would ensure that the selected jurors will not base their verdicts on things that are irrelevant, or unfairly prejudicial.[3]
A challenge for cause is a challenge that is used to eliminate jurors from the panel who may be undesirable.[4] Challenges for cause are oral objections made during voir dire which allege a fact that disqualifies a juror to serve in the given case.[5] If the challenge is sustained by the court, the juror is discharged from the case.[6] A challenge should be sustained when it appears that a potential juror has a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the suit.[7] A challenge for cause should also be sustained when the person was a witness in the case, is related by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree to one of the parties, or served as a juror in a former trial of the same case.[8] A challenge should also be sustained if a person is seen to have a bias or prejudice.
A disqualifying bias or prejudice could be towards one of the parties themselves.[9] For example, in the case of Gum v. Schaefer, a juror was disqualified from serving on the jury when she admitted that she was biased towards one of the parties because she had an attorney-client relationship with one of the attorneys. Thus, she would be much more likely to believe her lawyer than the other.[10] A disqualifying bias or prejudice could also be regarding the subject matter of the litigation.[11] For example, in the case of Carpenter v. Wyatt Construction Company, a juror was disqualified in a personal injury case after stating that it was impossible to keep a construction site clean.[12] Also, a juror is disqualified if he/she is unable or unwilling to follow the court’s instructions or if he/she unequivocally admits a bias or prejudice.[13]
But a bias or prejudice is not established because of a single statement. Instead, it is determined by considering the record as a whole.[14] Even a single statement by a prospective juror that one party is “ahead,” is not determinative of bias.[15] Thus, a prospective juror is not disqualified unless further questioning illustrates that the bias is equivocal, and that they cannot be impartial. Therefore, it is through the voir dire examination that the parties are able to expose any bias or prejudice, establish a basis for a challenge for cause against unwanted jurors, and ensure that the parties right to a “fair and impartial jury” is protected.
A challenge for cause is a challenge that is used to eliminate jurors from the panel who may be undesirable.[4] Challenges for cause are oral objections made during voir dire which allege a fact that disqualifies a juror to serve in the given case.[5] If the challenge is sustained by the court, the juror is discharged from the case.[6] A challenge should be sustained when it appears that a potential juror has a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the suit.[7] A challenge for cause should also be sustained when the person was a witness in the case, is related by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree to one of the parties, or served as a juror in a former trial of the same case.[8] A challenge should also be sustained if a person is seen to have a bias or prejudice.
A disqualifying bias or prejudice could be towards one of the parties themselves.[9] For example, in the case of Gum v. Schaefer, a juror was disqualified from serving on the jury when she admitted that she was biased towards one of the parties because she had an attorney-client relationship with one of the attorneys. Thus, she would be much more likely to believe her lawyer than the other.[10] A disqualifying bias or prejudice could also be regarding the subject matter of the litigation.[11] For example, in the case of Carpenter v. Wyatt Construction Company, a juror was disqualified in a personal injury case after stating that it was impossible to keep a construction site clean.[12] Also, a juror is disqualified if he/she is unable or unwilling to follow the court’s instructions or if he/she unequivocally admits a bias or prejudice.[13]
But a bias or prejudice is not established because of a single statement. Instead, it is determined by considering the record as a whole.[14] Even a single statement by a prospective juror that one party is “ahead,” is not determinative of bias.[15] Thus, a prospective juror is not disqualified unless further questioning illustrates that the bias is equivocal, and that they cannot be impartial. Therefore, it is through the voir dire examination that the parties are able to expose any bias or prejudice, establish a basis for a challenge for cause against unwanted jurors, and ensure that the parties right to a “fair and impartial jury” is protected.
Exposing Bias or Prejudice to Make Peremptory Challenges
The second purpose of voir dire examination is to facilitate the intelligent use of peremptory challenges.[16] Peremptory challenges may be used in addition to challenges for cause to prevent undesirable jurors from sitting on the jury.[17] The parties are limited in the number of peremptory challenges that they can make.[18] Consequently, counsel may first try to eliminate the undesirable jurors through challenges for cause and will save peremptory challenges for jurors when counsel is unable to establish a challenge for cause. Peremptory challenges are also referred to as “strikes.”[19] Unlike challenges for cause, strikes are “made to a juror without assigning any reason” for striking them.[20]
Strikes allow the parties in the case to reject jurors that they feel to be particularly insensitive to their position.[21]This fact emphasizes how subjective the jury selection process is and how unformulaic the voir dire process is as a result of the Rules of Civil Procedure not containing any rules regarding voir dire examination.[22] [23] But these strikes are not intended to allow a party to select the jurors that create the most favorable jury to them.[24] The parties are allowed, and have the right, to question prospective jurors to discover something that would call for a strike.[25] Counsel is thus given great latitude in voir dire in order to discover potential biases.[26] Seeking out potential bias or prejudice and making peremptory challenges thus furthers each of the parties right to a “fair impartial jury.”[27]
Strikes allow the parties in the case to reject jurors that they feel to be particularly insensitive to their position.[21]This fact emphasizes how subjective the jury selection process is and how unformulaic the voir dire process is as a result of the Rules of Civil Procedure not containing any rules regarding voir dire examination.[22] [23] But these strikes are not intended to allow a party to select the jurors that create the most favorable jury to them.[24] The parties are allowed, and have the right, to question prospective jurors to discover something that would call for a strike.[25] Counsel is thus given great latitude in voir dire in order to discover potential biases.[26] Seeking out potential bias or prejudice and making peremptory challenges thus furthers each of the parties right to a “fair impartial jury.”[27]
No comments:
Post a Comment