Doctoral Dissertation Research: Adequacy of Voir Dire Questioning for Selecting an Impartial Jury

在法庭审判中选派一个公正的陪审团的一个关键是口头审查的过程，在这个过程中，法官、律师或两者都要询问潜在陪审员的背景、历史和信仰，以确定他们是否有资格服务。为了识别有偏见的潜在陪审员，律师和法官必须对问题做出充分而准确的回答。社会科学研究表明，陪审员不会给出这样的回答，并且拒绝承认自己有偏见。口头审查制度存在缺陷的一个明显原因是律师和法官所提问题的种类和质量。本研究将从社会科学的提问和访谈标准出发，评估审前陈述中典型提问的充分性，进而考察提问的充分性与陪审员偏见识别之间的关系。本研究的理论和方法意义在于，它将提供关于口头陈述质疑的系统知识，并展示评估该程序的方法。更广泛的意义在于，这项研究应该确定在由第6修正案保证的组建公正陪审团的口头陈述的有效性方面的潜在改进。

One key to empanelling an impartial jury for a courtroom trial is the process of voir dire in which the judge, the attorneys, or both, question potential jurors about their background, history, and beliefs in order to determine whether they are qualified to serve. To identify biased prospective jurors, attorneys and judges must elicit adequate and accurate responses to questions. Social science research has shown that jurors do not provide such responses and resist admitting to bias. An apparent reason for voir dire's shortcomings is the kind and quality of questions asked by attorneys and judges. This research will assess the adequacy of typical questioning during voir dire in terms of social science standards of questioning and interviewing, and then examine the relationship between the adequacy of the questioning and the identification of juror bias. The theoretical and methodological significance of this research is that it will provide systematic knowledge about voir dire questioning and demonstrate a method for the evaluation of that procedure. The broader significance is that the research should identify potential improvements in the effectiveness of voir dire for empanelling an impartial jury as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.