<img height="1" width="1" alt="" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1482979731924517&amp;ev=PixelInitialized">

The Litigation Consulting Report

Jury Selection and Voir Dire: Don't Ask, Don't Know

Posted by Laurie Kuslansky on Mon, Sep 23, 2013 @ 07:26 AM

Find me on:

jury selection tips voir dire questions consultantby Laurie R. Kuslansky, Ph.D.
Expert Jury Consultant

John Colville once said of Winston Churchill,  “He fertilizes a phrase or a line of poetry for weeks and then gives birth to it in a speech.”

The same holds true for great voir dire questions asked during jury selection. How a question is asked dictates how it is answered: Skillful voir dire questions result from keen awareness of potential nuances, precise wording, intentional phrasing, and delivery.

Notice what certain variations elicit:

“Someone who files a formal discrimination complaint probably has a valid case” (48% agree nationally).  Many of the same people, however, agreed that “People often claim discrimination when they don’t get what they want” (52%) and that “Poor performers are much more likely to complain of discrimination than good performers” (55%).

Similarly, when asked “Do you believe there are too many lawsuits nowadays?” 79% of people nationally say “Yes.”

(Follow-up question: If someone is badly hurt by a product, do you think it’s frivolous of them to sue the company that made it? Most common answer: “No.”)

Are you an environmentalist? Most common answer: “Yes.”

(Follow-up question: Are you a member of or do you contribute money to any environmental organizations? Most common answer: “No.”)

Do you believe in racial profiling? Most common answer: “No.”

(Follow-up question: Should people from Muslim countries get extra scrutiny? Most common answer: “Yes.”)

The answers to those follow-up questions reveal different mindsets than the often-misleading answers to the primary questions, which can lead to mistaken judgments.  Good follow-up questions yield important information, but are often unasked. Don’t be satisfied (or worried) too soon by the first answer you get.


Research by Judge Gregory E. Mize (retired D.C. Superior Court trial judge and co-chair of the D.C. Jury Project) revealed that while 28% of prospective jurors in both civil and criminal cases failed to respond affirmatively to questions in open court, 10% of those “silent ones” in civil cases and 17.5% in criminal cases later revealed biases that yielded a cause strike in follow-up individual interviews.

Posed in the proper environment, follow-up questions are indispensable tools to provide a basis for cause strikes. The more cause strikes you achieve, the better use you can make of peremptory challenges to avoid undesirable jurors. Without such measures, biased jurors end up on the jury.

Skilled investigators know that closed-ended questioning (e.g., “When did you leave the bar?”) yields 85% less information than “free-format” interviews using open-ended questions (e.g., “Tell me what you did that night?”), which allow the respondent to recall and report more through free association. If given the time and space to do so without interruption, people reveal important information.

The tendency is to jump on a worrisome or interesting answer. However, better listening may provide more clues to people’s character, motives, biases, and experiences.  Reserve questions to learn specific information.

Here are some tips:

  • Establish rapport, especially with unfavorable jurors.

  • Make it easy for them to reveal why they are not good jurors for your client. It is a win-win situation: You will have a clearer basis to strike them or, if they end up on the jury, you will benefit from sharing a positive exchange with them.
  • Make jurors feel that it’s safe to talk. Beware of putting jurors on the spot or not protecting their privacy in open court, which makes them feel self-protective.
  • Leave them room to talk. “Take a beat,” a phrase borrowed from the stage, means to leave a moment’s silence after the other person answers in case they have something to add. The best information often comes out as an afterthought once a juror ponders a bit.
  • Don’t move on too quickly. Following a strict list of questions removes the spontaneity of “conversation” with potential jurors, suppresses their potential disclosures, and creates a deposition-like atmosphere that sends the message:  “Just tell me what I asked and nothing more.” This is counterproductive.
  • Reserve scripted questions to learn critical, specific information.

Whether due to a hidden agenda to remain on the jury or out of discomfort in revealing it, some jurors attempt to conceal bias. Stealth enemies are critical to ferret out.

  • Invite and cajole the jurors. Make it acceptable for them to expose their bias.
  • To hone your skills at getting at the truth, read about investigative techniques to detecting lies and deceit.

It takes two people to learn the truth: one to tell it and one to listen and make it safe for them to tell it. Inquiring lawyers must make prospective jurors feel safe to reveal the truth.


This is the first in a series of five posts on jury selection and trial consultants. Other parts are linked here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 & Part 5.


Other A2L Articles related to jury selection, voir dire and jury trial practice:


complex civil litigation graphics free ebook guide download



Tags: Jury Questionnaire, Juries, Voir Dire, Jury Selection

Confidential A2L Consulting Conflicts Check Form

Join 8,800 Subscribers and Get Notified of New Articles Every Week

Watch Now: Using PowerPoint Litigation Graphics to Win - Webinar

using powerpoint litigation graphics

Free Litigation Webinars - Watch Now

ryan flax a2l litigation consultants webinar recorded

patent litigation webinar free litigation graphics demonstrative

Featured E-Book: The Patent Litigator's Guide to Trial Presentation & Trial Preparation

patent litigation ebook 3rd edition

Featured Free Download: The Complex Civil Litigation Trial Guide

a2l consultants complex civil litigation trial guide download

Free Webinar - Integrating Expert Evidence & Winning Arguments - Watch Anytime.

expert witness teach science complex subject courtroom webinar

Nationally Acclaimed - Voted #1 Jury Research Firm and #1 Demonstrative Evidence Firm in the U.S.

voted best demonstrative evidence consultants

A2L best demonstrative trial graphics consultants
best demonstrative evidence litigation graphics consultants

Download the (Free) Storytelling for Litigators E-Book

describe the image

Considering Using a Trial Technician at Your Next Trial? Download this first.

trial technicians trial technology atlanta houston new york boston virginia

Featured Free Download: Using Science to Prevail in Your Next Case or Controversy

using science to win at trial litigation jury

Featured FREE A2L E-Book: Using Litigation Graphics Persuasively

using litigation graphics trial graphics trial presentation consultants

Free Jury Consulting & Trial Consulting Guidebook for Litigators

jury consulting trial consultants guide

Timelines Appear In Most Trials - Learn how to get the most out of using trial timelines in this ebook

trial timelines graphics consultants litigators

Featured Complimentary eBook - The 100-page Antitrust Litigation Guide

antitrust ebook a2l litigation consultants

Featured Complimentary eBook - Leadership Lessons for Litigators and Litigation Support

leadership lessons litigation law firms litigation support

Featured E-Book: The Environmental Litigator's Guide to Trial Presentation & Prep

environmental litigation trial presentation trial prep ebook a2l


KenLopez resized 152

Ken Lopez founded A2L Consulting in 1995. The firm has since worked with litigators from all major law firms on more than 10,000 cases with over $2 trillion cumulatively at stake.  The A2L team is comprised of psychologists, jury consultants, trial consultants, litigation consultants, attorneys and information designers who provide jury consulting, litigation graphics and trial technology.  Ken Lopez can be reached at lopez@A2LC.com.


Tony Klapper joined A2L Consulting after accumulating 20 years of litigation experience while a partner at both Reed Smith and Kirkland & Ellis. Today, he is the Managing Director of Litigation Consulting and General Counsel for A2L Consulting. Tony has significant litigation experience in products liability, toxic tort, employment, financial services, government contract, insurance, and other commercial disputes.  In those matters, he has almost always been the point person for demonstrative evidence and narrative development on his trial teams. Tony can be reached at klapper@a2lc.com.

dr laurie kuslansky jury consultant a2l consulting

Laurie R. Kuslansky, Ph.D., Managing Director, Trial & Jury Consulting, has conducted over 400 mock trials in more than 1,000 litigation engagements over the past 20 years. Dr. Kuslansky's goal is to provide the highest level of personalized client service possible whether one's need involves a mock trial, witness preparation, jury selection or a mock exercise not involving a jury. Dr. Kuslansky can be reached at kuslansky@A2LC.com.

Articles by Category

Follow A2L Consulting

Member Red Well Blog
ABA Blawg 100 2013 7th annual

Follow Us on Google+

A2L on Google+