Writer’s choice revised

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Law
Date of Submission
Answer the following: (Introductory Questions): Why is voir dire an important part of the trial process? What sort of information about jurors does an attorney want to discover during voir dire? What factors help make a jury fair and impartial? What factors might cause a juror to favor one side over the other side?
Voir Dire is a jury selection process is one of the most import phases when selecting a jury who are partisan and is taken as most important part by many legal professionals during a trial procedure. Attorneys will identify jurors who are partisan during Voir Dire. To assist make an impartial ruling, the juror must be unbiased and not related to either side of the parties or attorneys and not formed an opinion on the issue; attorneys can challenge for cause and also peremptory challenges to kick out juror without giving reasons. Factors causing a juror to favor one over another are race, gender, wealth and even similar characteristics.
2. Read: IS THIS JURY FAIR? (below) It is a segment of the voir dire exam conducted at Harold Johnson’s trial. Answer the questions that follow the fact pattern. Did Mr. Johnson receive a trial by a fair and impartial jury?
No. The reason is that Juror Spencer had an experience of robbery in a couple of weeks before that will affect his opinions and decisions towards the case. Additionally, he admitted that he might be biased towards the case and might not lead to the defendant getting a fair trial when Mr.

Pickard asked him. However, Juror Spencer then said he was able to give a fair decision when asked by the judge, which I think the questions the judge asked was biased and directing Juror Spencer for a specific reply.
3. Read NEW YORK v. ED JONES. (Below) As a student, you may decide if you want to play the role of Ed’s defense attorney or prosecuting attorney. From that perspective, visualize the ideal juror for your side of the case.
Answer these questions: What type of person would best? What type of person would identify with your client’s position, with you as an attorney, or with the issues in this case? Describe the ideal juror including such characteristics as age, social background, marital status, family status, education, occupation, employment history, residence history, personal history, hobbies and activities, and possible experiences that might be relevant to the case.
Jurors that are around middle-aged, that have a family, even better if they have kids’ will be the best for prosecuting attorney. The reason is that having a family living in a neighborhood, of course, they will want to have a secured and safe neighborhood (Kovera 67). However, it is better not to have Jurors that have relation with the victim as the defendant might appeal later. Furthermore, Jurors should have a good background which means good credibility. Lastly, occupation sometimes might help as well, and hobbies of the Jurors consists of outdoor sports will want a safe neighborhood to carry out those activities
Next, consider and describe the type of person who would be least likely to identify with your position. Give as much detail as possible.
Somebody who has a family since they have an understanding of family issues hence they are likely to prosecute well.
You should be able to reason how certain characteristics might make one person more ideal than another. Keep in mind that lawyers often disagree with each other as to who the ideal juror for a particular case may be. The ideal juror for their side is the “least sympathetic” juror for the other side.
Old jurors will be list sympathetic since they have experienced much hence they cannot be swayed away by one case.
Based on your descriptions, write questions you might ask during voir dire to eliminate the jurors least favorable to your side of the case (defense or prosecution, as you selected).
Which cases have you handled?
How many years have been a juror?
Why do you think you should be part of this case?
1. Should Juror Spencer have been removed for cause? Why or why not?
Practice Exercise
Yes. The reason due to Juror Spencer had an experience of robbery in a couple of weeks before, that will affect his opinions and decisions towards the case, which he might not be able to provide a fair trial to the defendant.
2. Why did the Judge refuse to grant the challenge for cause? Do you think Juror Spencer could listen to the case impartially and without prejudice even though he said he would consider only the evidence brought forth at trial? Explain.
It is because the Judge believes that Juror Spencer can make fair decisions from the evidence and witness. However, I do not think that Juror Spencer could give a fair decision and opinion without prejudice due to his experience. The reason is that he admitted that he might be biased towards the case and might not enable the defendant to get a fair trial when Mr. Pickard asked him, then said he was able to give a fair decision when asked by the judge.
3. What else could the defense attorney, Mr. Pickard, have done in this case? If you were the
attorney, what additional questions would you have asked during voir dire?
I would use my peremptory challenges to strike out Juror Spencer due to his previous experience, which leads to forming an opinion on the issue. If I were a defense attorney, I would ask their opinion on the robbery to see if any Juror has a prejudice against it and also ask a question like “Has any of you had financial difficulties before?” to identify Jurors that can benefit the defendant.
4. What do you think was the impact of Juror Spencer becoming the foreperson of the jury?
I think that with his bad experience of robbery, his opinion and prejudice towards robbery might have a big impact on the jury decision.
5. If you were an appellate judge on the court hearing this appeal, would you agree or disagree with the trial judge’s decision? Explain.
Depending on the strength of evidence and witness against the defendant, if it is not strong and controversial, I will consider accepting the appeal. It is because there is a valid reason that the foreperson of the jury is biased and has a prejudice towards the case, which plays a huge part of the judge’s decision.

Work Cited
Kovera, Margaret Bull, Jason J. Dickinson, and Brian L. Cutler. “Voir dire and jury selection.” Handbook of psychology (2003).