Jury Selection Follies

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.


Robert Lane Greene passes along an interesting case today. Apparently lawyers have taken to googling potential jurors during the jury selection process, leading to this exchange in a case a year ago:

THE COURT: Are you Googling these [potential jurors]?

[PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL]: Your Honor, there’s no code law that says I’m not allowed to do that. I — any courtroom — 

THE COURT: Is that what you’re doing?

[PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL]: I’m getting information on jurors — we’ve done it all the time, everyone does it. It’s not unusual. It’s not. There’s no rule, no case or any suggestion in any case that says …

THE COURT: No, no, here is the rule. The rule is it’s my courtroom and I control it.

OK, two things. First, although I understand the need for judges to keep order, I’ve long been annoyed by their apparent belief that courtrooms are little fiefdoms to be ruled as they see fit. So I’m glad this particular exercise of arbitrary authority got overturned.

But second: can we please do away with lawyer-conducted voir dire completely? True, it produced my favorite John Grisham novel, but what a waste of time for everyone involved. Instead, let the judge do the questioning and allow the lawyers to intervene only if they have a substantive issue to present. Beyond that, just take the first twelve people who aren’t plainly compromised in one way or another. It works in Britain, there’s no reason it can’t work here too, and I’ll bet it would cut down on court time and costs by upwards of 10% or so. How about some help with this, small government types?

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.