The purpose of voir dire is not to select the best jury but rather to uncover jurors that may be unwilling or unable to perform their duties, ie. "problem" jurors. However, they may, unfortunately, not be discovered until deliberations. Only then may a juror be discovered to be unwilling to deliberate impartially and follow the court's instructions. This is a delicate inquiry by the court as the judge may not "interfere with the integrity of deliberations, which could result in a mistrial." Under the Federal Rules the court must find "good cause", however it is not defined.
In U.S. v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) on 2 separate occasions the judge interviewed each juror individually. The case provides a good illustration of the types of questions that may be appropriate so as not to interfere with the integrity of deliberations:
1. Are you personally experiencing any problems with how deliberations are proceeding without telling us anything about the votes as to guilt or innocence? If yes, describe the problem.
2. Are all of the jurors discussing the evidence or lack of evidence?
3. Are all of the jurors following the court's instruction on the law?
4. Are any jurors refusing to deliberate?
5. Is there a juror who is refusing to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence?
6. Is there a juror who is refusing to follow the instructions on the law?
In Kemp the Third Circuit held that courts may only excuse a juror when there is "no reasonable possibility that the allegations of misconduct stem from the juror's views of the evidence." (at p. 304)
(Drawn from "Excusing Jurors During Deliberations: Determining 'Good Cause' by Tracey E. Timlin, ABA copyright 2019)
No comments:
Post a Comment