Washington State Courts - Jury Commission

> >

eService Center

Improving Jury Selection Procedures

TRIAL COURTS SHOULD MAKE AVAILABLE TO ATTORNEYS A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE COURT'S STANDARD PRACTICES FOR JURY SELECTION.

THE COURT'S STANDARD PRACTICES SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE PARTIES HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SELECT A FAIR JURY WHILE AVOIDING UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE JUROR DISCOMFORT AND EMBARRASSMENT.

BEST PRACTICES SHOULD INCLUDE:

INVITING PARTIES TO SUBMIT GENERAL QUESTIONS TO THE COURT IN ADVANCE OF JUROR QUESTIONING;
SETTING REASONABLE TIME LIMITS FOR ATTORNEY QUESTIONING WHILE REMAINING FLEXIBLE TO INCREASE LIMITS IF CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT;
NUMBERING JURORS WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL TRIAL PANEL BEFORE THEY ENTER THE COURTROOM AND SEATING THEM IN NUMERICAL ORDER;
GIVING AN INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTION AND ASKING GENERAL QUESTIONS OF THE ENTIRE PANEL;
PERMITTING JURORS TO BE QUESTIONED AS A GROUP RATHER THAN BY A SERIES OF REPETITIOUS QUESTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL JURORS;
REQUIRING CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE TO BE MADE WHENEVER THE GROUNDS FOR THE CHALLENGE ARISE. THE CHALLENGE AND THE COURT’S RULING MUST BE MADE ON THE RECORD AT A TIME WHEN THE JUROR CAN BE QUESTIONED ON THE CHALLENGE. THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO CONDUCT THE HEARING ON THE CHALLENGE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER JURORS;
TAKING PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES OUT OF THE HEARING OF JURORS, WITH THE COURT ANNOUNCING THE FINAL SELECTIONS TO THE PANEL; AND
IDENTIFYING THE ALTERNATE JURORS AS SOON AS THE PANEL IS SELECTED.

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.
Struck Jury Method	The struck jury method differs from the traditional method of strike-and-replace selection in that all members of the panel may be questioned by counsel at any time during jury selection; counsel need not limit questioning to a single juror in the jury box. The advantages of this method are that it saves time, reduces juror boredom and frustration because every juror is not asked the same questions, and promotes juror participation and the jurors’ sharing of relevant information. The method should be used with caution, if at all, in the most serious cases where thorough questioning of individual jurors and accurate notetaking of each juror’s response is critical.
Written Procedures 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.
	References: 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 (3^rd 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.