Current Jury Selection Practices Vary
Jury selection practices vary significantly from court to court. Most courts now use some version of the struck jury method, but many variations still exist.
and Best Practices
The Jury Commission believes that less time will be wasted during jury selection if the attorneys are told in advance how jury selection will be conducted. This information is easily communicated through a set of written procedures. The written procedures should adopt the “best practices” identified above. The written procedures should also specify the particular sequence of steps in the court’s selection process, beginning with any pre-trial submission of questions by the attorneys, continuing through the arrival of the jury panel in the courtroom and the handling of peremptory challenges and challenges for cause, and concluding with the final selection of the jury.
G. Thomas Munsterman, Roger G. Strand, and J. William Hart, “The Best Method of Selecting Jurors”, The Judge’s Journal (Summer 1990) (concluding that the “struck jury” method is generally superior to the “strike and replace” method).
Washington Jury Standards, Part B: Selection of a Particular Jury (3rd ed. 1997) (establishing standards for conducting voir dire, challenges for cause, and peremptory challenges).
Arizona Supreme Court Committee on More Effective Use of Juries, Jurors: The Power of 12, p. 61 (1994) (recommending that judges be allowed to choose between the “struck” and the “strike and replace” methods).
New York court rule Â§ 202.33 (allowing judges in civil cases to choose among a few methods for selecting a jury, including (1) a “struck” method, (2) a method blending the “struck” and “strike and replace” approaches, and (3) other alternative methods–including “strike and replace”–only if specially approved).
Judge David A. Nichols, “Some Thoughts on How to Use the Struck System in Jury Voir Dire”, Washington State Bar News, July 1992, p. 11.