The Voir Dire Examination, Juror Challenges, and Adversary Advocacy

  • Gordon Bermant
  • John Shapard
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 2)


Many trial lawyers believe that the voir dire examination and subsequent excuse (called “challenge”) of potential jurors are crucial components of their art. Following a recent, highly publicized Texas murder trial, for example, two of the five defense lawyers and one adviser to the prosecution credited the acquittal to the composition of the jury instead of the evidence presented at trial.1 When Joann Little was acquitted of murder in 1975, her defense attorney said that he had “bought” the verdict with a large defense fund, used in particular to support an exten-sive, systematic jury selection exercise.2 With such faith placed on the importance of juror selection, it is no wonder that trial lawyers talk and p juror Y write at length about how to test jurors for bias and what kinds of jurors are likely to be unfavorable to a client’s cause (see, for example, Bodin, 1976; Ginger, 1977).


Guilty Verdict Federal Judge Jury Selection Prospective Juror Trial Lawyer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Babcock, B. Voir dire: Preserving “its wonderful power.” Standford Law Review, 1975, 27, 545–565.Google Scholar
  2. Balch, R. W., Griffiths, L. T., Hall, E. O., & Winfree, L. T. The socialization of jurors: The voir dire as a rite of passage. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1976, 4, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begam, R. Voir dire: The attorney’s job. Trial, 1977, 13 3.Google Scholar
  4. Berk, R. A. Social science and jury selection. A case study of a civil suit. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. Berk, R. A., Hennessy, M., & Swan, J. The vagaries and vulgarities of “scientific” jury selection. Evaluation Quarterly, 1977, 1 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman, J., & Sales, B. D. A critical evaluation of the systematic approach to jury selection. Criminal Justice and Behavior 1977, 4 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bermant, G. Conduct of the voir dire examination: Practices and opinions of federal district judges. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. Blunk, R. A., & Sales, B. D. Persuasion during the voir dire. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the legal process. New York: Spectrum Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. Bodin, H. Civil litigation and trial techniques (1976 ed.). New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Brams, S. J., & Davis, M. D. A game-theory approach to jury selection. Trial, 1976, 12, 47–49.Google Scholar
  11. Brams, S. J., & Davis, M. D. Optimal jury selection: A game-theoretic model for the exercise of peremptory challenges. Operations research, 1978, 26 966–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christie, R. Probability vs. precedence: The social psychology of jury selection. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. Damaska, M. Presentation of evidence and fact-finding precision. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1975, 123 1083–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzioni, A. Creating an imbalance. Trial, 1974, 10 (6), 28–30.Google Scholar
  15. Ginger, A. Jury selection in criminal trials. (Supp. 1977) Tiburon, Calif.: Law Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. Herblseb, J., Sales, B. D., & Berman, J. The legal and ethical consequences of social scientists aiding the voir dire. In L. E. Abt & I. Stuart (Eds.), The social psychology of discretionary law. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. Higginbotham, P. E. Continuing the dialogue: Civil juries and allocation of judicial power. Texas Law Review 1977, 56 47–60.Google Scholar
  18. Kairys, O., Kadane, J. B., & Lehoczky, J. P. Jury representativeness: A mandate for multiple source lists. California Law Review, 1977 65 776–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  20. Katz, J. Experimentation with human beings. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972.Google Scholar
  21. McConahay, J. D., Mullin, C. J. and Fredericks J. The uses of social science in trials with political and racial overtones: The trial of Joann Little. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1977, 41 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore, R. D. Voir dire examination of jurors: I. The English practice. Georgetown Law Journal, 1927–1928, 16, 438–453. (a)Google Scholar
  23. Moore, R. D. Voir dire examination of jurors: II. The federal practice. Georgetown Law Journal, 1928, 17 13–38. (b)Google Scholar
  24. Partridge, A., & Bermant, G. The quality of advocacy in the federal courts. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, 1978.Google Scholar
  25. Plutchik, R., & Schwartz, A. K. Jury selection: Folklore or science? Criminal Law Bulletin, 1965 1 3–9.Google Scholar
  26. Roth, A., Kadane, J. B., & DeGroot, M. Optimal peremptory challenges in trial by juries: A bilaterial sequential process. (Tech. Rep. No. 122, ONR Rep. No. 7). Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University, Department of Statistics, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. Saks, M. The limits of scientific jury selection: Ethical and empirical. Jurimetrics Journal, 1976 17 3–22.Google Scholar
  28. Shapley, D. Jury selection: Social scientists gamble in an already loaded game. Science,1974, 185, 1033–1071.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suggs, D., & Sales, B. The art and science of conducting the voir dire. Journal of Professional Psychology, 1978, 9 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar
  31. Van Dyke, J. M. Jury selection procedures. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1977.Google Scholar
  32. Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. The jury selection in the Mitchell-Stans conspiracy trial. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 19761976 151–174.Google Scholar
  33. Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdict: An experiment in a federal district court. Stanford Law Review, 1978, 30, 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon Bermant
    • 1
  • John Shapard
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal Judicial CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations