CITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER
Voir
Dire (Jury Selection)*
Lesson Plan and Activity
Grade Level: 9, 10, 11, 12
Subject(s):
· Social Studies: Government – Judicial System
· Language Arts: Reading, writing and listening
Duration: 2 class sessions
Day 1 – Lecture and Activity Preparation
Day 2 - Jury questioning and wrap-up
Description:
This lesson plan provides and overview of the voir dire process (jury selection), and set up an activity that mirrors jury selection for a criminal trial.
Goals:
ISBE Standards:
- Social Science
· 14A: Understand and explain basic principles of the United States Government.
- Language Arts
· 1A: Apply word analysis and vocabulary skills to comprehend selections;
· 4A: Listen effectively in formal and informal situations;
· 4B: Speak effectively using language appropriate to the situation and audience.
Objectives:
- Define and understand voir dire.
- Examine characteristics of a potential juror that may be more favorable or less favorable to one party or another.
- Examine presumptions made about individuals based on a limited amount of knowledge.
- Determine whether the above presumptions are valid.
Materials:
- Notebook paper and pen
- Blank overhead, white board, or chalkboard
- Character Descriptions for six (6) potential jurors
- 4 should be neutral to both sides
- 1 that could be biased against the defendant
- 1 that could be biased against the state
- Jury Selections Worksheet – one per student
- Copy of the hypothetical – one per student.
Instructions and Activities:
DAY 1 -
Lecture:
1. Introductory Activity
Tell the class three things about yourself:
For example: Favorite book, Favorite Music Album, Favorite Movie
Ask the class: What assumptions would you make about me based on this information?
2. When people respond to a jury summons, they gather at the courthouse to form a pool of potential jurors from which they are called in groups for specific criminal or civil trials. During Jury selection the attorneys for each side and/or the trial judge questions the potential jurors about their background, life experiences, and opinions to determine whether they can weigh the evidence presented at trial fairly and objectively. This process is called voir dire, an Anglo-French term meaning "to speak the truth."
3. VOIR DIRE – the process in which opposing lawyers question prospective jurors to get as favorable or as fair a jury as possible.
a. French words
i. Voir – “to see”
ii. Dire – “ to say”
iii. Together it means “to speak the truth”
b. The attorneys for each side have an opportunity to ask each juror questions to determine whether they would be biased on a specific jury.
i. In some jurisdictions the attorneys ask the questions directly to the potential jurors
ii. In some jurisdictions the attorneys submit questions to the judge who asks the questions in the presence of the attorneys.
c. Removal for Cause - Through voir dire, an attorney can challenge (remove) a prospective juror "for cause" if that person says or otherwise expresses a bias against the attorney's case.
d. Peremptory Challenges - Each attorney can also exercise a limited number of "peremptory" challenges for which no reason is required. Peremptory challenges are used when a party believes that a particular juror will not be helpful to the case or will not see the case in a light favorable to the party (i.e. many attorneys do not want other attorneys to be jurors in their cases even though the person is otherwise qualified to be a juror. The attorney does not want the juror/attorney to take control of the jury room, use outside knowledge of the law to interpret the case, etc.)
i. neither side is allowed to exercise a peremptory challenge based on the race or gender of a prospective juror. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)
e. Those individuals who are accepted by both attorneys [or the trial judge, if the judge conducts the voir dire] are impaneled and sworn in as the jury.
4. Traditionally, American attorneys have had much latitude in conducting voir dire. The power to challenge, and the discretion to use it is very important in our adversarial system of justice; each attorney works for a jury most sympathetic to their side. Like all powers, this one has been subject to misuse and even abuse.
5. Quotes
a. We have a jury system which is superior to any in the world. Its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don’t know anything and can’t read. –Mark Twain
b. A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer. –Robert Frost
Class Activity: Mock Jury Selection
1. Hand out copies of the hypothetical and the worksheet. Have a volunteer read it out loud.
2. Select 6 students to be jurors.
The rest of the class should be divided equally into two groups: the defense lawyers and the state’s attorneys.
Have the groups gather together in separate areas of the classroom.
3. Preparation for jury selection.
a. Jurors - Read their profiles and “develop” their characters.
b. Attorney groups: Read the hypothetical and prepare for jury selection by completing the Attorney Worksheet.
DAY 2:
4. Questioning:
Each side will be able to ask each potential juror up to three questions in turn.
We will alternate with the state asking the first question and the defense asking the first question.
5. Selection: Each side will have time to deliberate and select one juror out of the pool to eliminate and state their reasons why. (Attorneys do not have to state reasons why they are eliminating a juror, but we want to understand each side’s process and reasoning.)
1. Prosecution will want to strike the juror who thinks that dogs only attack when provoked.
2. Defense will want to strike the juror who is biased against Germans.
Wrap-up/Class Discussion
1. Was your attorney group successful in eliminating a potentially biased juror? Why or why not? What other questions might you have asked the jurors to seek biases?
2. Will voir dire eliminate all potentially biased jurors? Why or Why not?
3. If voir dire does not eliminate all potentially biased jurors, why do we even have voir dire? Why do we have trial by jury?
Teacher Resources
Websites
http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/voir_dire.html
Attorney Worksheet
Prior to Voir Dire
What is your goal for this case? What do you want to accomplish?________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
What personal characteristics are you looking for in members of the jury?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
What personal characteristics would you not want the members of your jury to posses?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Questioning the Jury
Write six potential questions to ask the jury pool to find out if they possess the characteristics listed above.
1.____________________________________________________________________________
2.____________________________________________________________________________
3.____________________________________________________________________________
4.____________________________________________________________________________
5.____________________________________________________________________________
6.____________________________________________________________________________
Selecting the Jury
Which potential jury member do you want removed from the jury and why? ________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Hypothetical
People of Illinois v. Mr. Francis Dale
Mr. Dale, a German born, 44-year-old single man lives alone with his dog, Rufus, in Oak Park, Illinois. Rufus is a former military dog that has been trained to kill. Mr. Dale is known as a loner. He has a very heavy accent. It is common knowledge that some neighborhood teenagers do not like Mr. Dale and he does not like him. Every year his house is egged on Halloween and his home is pummeled with snowballs in the winter.
On October 31, 2002, Mr. Dale had just returned from walking Rufus. As he got to his front porch he was looking at his mail, with his back turned. When he was opened his front door, an egg that was thrown by someone within a group of teenagers whizzed by his head, starlting him. He tuned around and said something in German. Suddenly, Rufus ran and attacked one of the teenagers, 16-year-old John Meyers.
John suffered severe injuries and died in the hospital 3 days later. Mr. Dale claims the dog was startled and attacked instinctively to protect him. The teenagers claim that Mr. Dale commanded Rufus to attack. Based on this information, the prosecution has charged Mr. Dale with murder, or alternatively, with manslaughter.
Potential Juror #1
21 years old
Male
College Student
Owns 2 cats
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Potential Juror #2
37 years old
Male
Accountant
Has owned dogs all his life – believes they only attack when provoked
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Potential Juror #3
Male
53 years old
Real estate agent
Never owned a pet
Both parents are from Germany
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Potential Juror #4
Female
30 years old
Grandparents died in Concentration Camp in WWII – as a result believes that all Germans are bad.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Potential Juror #5
Female
49 years old
Youngest daughter was bitten on face by family poodle
Family still owns poodles.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Potential Juror #6
Female
60 years old
Owns a dog and a cat.
©Copyright
2005 Citizen Advocacy Center. All
rights reserved. No part of this lesson
plan may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior, written
permission of the Citizen Advocacy Center. The Citizen Advocacy Center is
a 501(c)(3) non-pofit, non-partisan community based legal organization. For
information about the Center, or to make a tax deductible contribution, visit
www.citizenadvocacycenter.org,
call 630.833.4080. The Center is located at 238 N. York Rd., Elmhurst IL 60126