NCJ Number
99874
Date Published
1985
Length
25 pages
Annotation
Arguments for and against giving lawyers the right to take part orally in the voir dire process are presented, based mainly on testimony presented to a U.S. Senate subcommittee in 1984.
Abstract
Currently, judges determine the extent of the lawyers' participation in the voir dire process, although proposed Federal legislation would give lawyers the right to take part orally in the jury selection. Recent data indicate that about three-fourths of the Federal district judges do not allow lawyers to conduct oral examinations. However, most consult with lawyers before the voir dire and allow them to provide questions for the entire panel as well as for individual panelists. Proponents of participation by lawyers argue that judges do not know how to ask questions, that jurors may lie to the judge, that the jury may be oriented toward the prosecution if the lawyers do not take part, and that participation by counsel will increase the perception of fairness of jury trials. Opponents argue that the current rules do not ban participation by lawyers, but properly place the control with the judge. They also argue that (1) lawyers will abuse voir dire by pleading their own cases, (2) involvement by lawyers is too costly and time consuming, and (3) giving lawyers the right to take part orally would impede the administration of justice and destroy jury impartiality. It is concluded that only the judge should decide about the conduct of the examination of prospective jurors because no convincing evidence exists that lawyers' participation is required. 28 references.