NCJ Number
9184
Journal
Brooklyn Law Review Volume: 39 Issue: 2 Dated: (FALL 1972) Pages: 290-329
Date Published
1972
Length
40 pages
Annotation
'THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO SHOW THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THE DUTY OF FERRETING OUT BIAS AND PRECONCEPTION, WHICH IS BEST LEFT TO COUNSEL.'
Abstract
ALTHOUGH THE RIGHT TO ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE HAS BECOME ENTRENCHED IN AMERICAN TRIAL PRACTICE, IT WAS NOT ALWAYS SO. THE RIGHT WAS NOT RECOGNIZED AT COMMON LAW. THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY OF WHETHER COUNSEL MUST BE ALLOWED TO QUESTION JURORS AROSE OUT OF THE ADOPTION OF FEDERAL RULE 24 WHICH SAYS THE COURT MAY PERMIT ATTORNEYS TO EXAMINE PROSPECTIVE JURORS OR MAY ITSELF CONDUCT THE EXAMINATION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT, THE AUTHOR REVIEWS THE PRE-AMERICAN REVOLUTION ENGLISH PRACTICE REGARDING VOIR DIRE, THE DEBATE OVER THE ADOPTION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, THE POLICY ADOPTED BY THE MAJORITY OF STATES, AND THE PARTICULAR TYPES OF CASES WHICH REQUIRE ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE TO ENSURE A MINIMALLY FAIR TRIAL. (AUTHOR MODIFIED)