|
I had the pleasure of sitting through jury selection this week for a criminal trespassing trial. I was far enough back in the panel that I was not "in play" so I didn't get many questions, and I could watch as a disinterested observer. It was interesting being on the other side of the rail, and there were certainly things I learned from the experience. First, tell the jury what's going to happen. Tell them what's going to happen in the process, tell them why you're going to ask what may seem to be private questions, etc. I was the only lawyer on the panel, and after one of the attorneys pointed out I was an attorney, I was peppered with questions about what was going on. Never forget that most of the jurors have no idea about the process other than what they've seen on TV. And there's not a lot of voir dire on TV. Second, make people talk. The prosecuting attorney, who was young, finished his voir dire and probably 1/2 of the jurors that were likely potential jurors had not said anything other than responding "yes" or "no" to various questions. The defense lawyer, who was more experienced, did a much better job of getting the jurors to open up. Third, don't be afraid to get off script and follow up with jurors' answers. I'm not privy to any of the facts of the case, but what I gathered was this was a dispute among neighbors where the big issue was going to be whether the defendant had notice that he was not welcome on the property. The prosecutors indicated that you could have notice by putting up a no trespassing sign, obviously, or putting up a fence. During the voir dire, one juror volunteered, in an off-topic answer to a question, that he had criminally trespassed before to go hunting on someone else's property. But if the rest of us were asked whether we had criminally trespassed under the prosecution's strict definition, we would have answered "yes." I know I've gone in all of my neighbors' fences, without their agreement, to get various balls that my kids hit in their yards. And I'm sure most of us have similar stories. Getting those stories out, I'm guessing, would have made the jury take a harder stand on the prosecution's strict interpretation of the statute. Fourth, know the law on strikes for cause. In Texas, there are some almost magic words that, when used, can lead to jurors being dismissed for cause, but the judge and other side can also rehabilitate the potential jurors to avoid a strike for cause. Know what the magic words are and, once you get the juror to use those words, use one of the numerous techniques available to get them to commit to that opinion so they can't be rehabilitated. Because I was one of the jurors that was a potential challenge for cause, I was able to watch as the judge called us to the bench to be questioned by the attorneys and judge. Both of the attorneys struggled at getting the jurors to admit their bias (even when it appeared that jurors were trying to be biased), and neither did anything to get them to commit to that bias to prevent rehabilitation. Anyway, it was a great experience to go through. I think any trial lawyer should want to go through voir dire and a jury trial as a juror to see the process from the other side.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed