class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs


« "A Well-Oiled Machine" | Welcome Washington Times readers »

February 15, 2005

"Voir Dire: When to Strike, When Not"

In a Wyoming case,

several cases were consolidated because they all involved the same issues. The evidence was heard by multiple juries at the same time. Then the juries separated to make their individual decisions regarding the same issues of liability for each respective party. "The defense won some and the plaintiffs won some," Brega notes. To him, that's pretty clear support for the notion that "the person listening to the evidence has a huge impact on the way a case is determined."
(Cary Griffith, LawCrossing, Feb. 15).

There's a cottage industry of support companies specializing in how to use the voir dire process to manipulate both the composition and attitude of a jury to be more favorable. An ATLA "litigation tip" suggests plaintiffs' attorneys mislead the court by requesting to show photographs of an auto accident to "test juror eyesight" and then learn from juror reactions who is skeptical of soft-tissue injuries. (Larry D. Lee, "Use Photos to Identify Juror Bias",, Dec. 7).

Posted by Ted Frank at 07:28 AM | TrackBack (0)

Attorneys' Fees and Ethics



Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.