NCJ Number
93476
Date Published
1984
Length
10 pages
Annotation
An assistant attorney general from the Criminal Division summarizes reasons underlying the Department of Justice's (DOJ) opposition to S.386 and S.677, which would change current Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure to mandate a counsel-controlled voir dire in jury selection.
Abstract
At present, the court controls the extent of the Government's and defense's participation in voir dire, and the vast majority of Federal judges have preferred to conduct voir dire themselves. The DOJ believes that this practice has proven to be fair and economical and feels that adopting a counsel-controlled process would be a grave and costly mistake. The DOJ is unaware of any serious allegations or evidence that the prevailing Federal practice has failed to protect parties' rights to an impartial jury. In contrast, empirical studies and commentators on experiences in New York State and California, which have rules similar to those proposed in the Senate bills, have concluded that attorneys abuse voir dire in many ways. Moreover, counsel-controlled voir dire consumed far more scarce court time than judge-controlled voir dire. Bills to adopt judge-controlled voir dire are now pending in the New York Legislature and reflect a current trend away from voir dire conducted by attorneys. While the Senate bills allow the court to impose reasonable limitations on voir dire by attorneys, experience in States with such rules has shown that judges often decline to exercise these powers for fear of committing errors that may lead to reversal. In the year ending June 30, l983, 9,769 juries were selected in the Federal courts. This already strained system cannot cope with massive and costly delays in the selection process that might be caused by a change in the voir dire rules. Eleven footnotes are included.