Should These Jury Selection Questions be Allowed to be Asked?

Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell would like to ask the following questions of potential jurors for their trials.

“I think that Trump and his associates tried to steal the election and throw out my vote.”
“I think the First Amendment should not protect people who spread political misinformation about elections.”
“I think every single person who is accused of helping Donald Trump try to overturn the election should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
“I think MAGA Republicans are mostly made up of radicals and White supremacists.”
“I think anyone who publicly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump is guilty of spreading misinformation that undermines our democracy.”

Source:
Georgia election subversion case judge skeptical of asking potential jurors about ‘MAGA Republicans’

I think all of these questions should be allowed, as they could help identify people who not only blindly believe things that they had been told, but act out, often emotionally and ecratically, based on those beliefs. That's my 2 cents.

What do you think ATS?

Should these questions be allowed to be asked of potential jurors? Why or why not?


Extra Credit
Identify other questionable, odd, or extreme questions that have been allowed to be asked of potential jurors in other trials.

They ask only 5 questions.......I got hundreds! What our political landscape has become is an absolute joke! All these trials are a disgrace At what point do you say no more? May God help us for we've lost our way.. Trump, gag order......Hunter gun charges dismissed. Send help.a reply to: IndieA

a reply to: IndieA

I think that those questions have to be asked and that there will likely be people who fail the basic tests says more about where we are as a country and our society than it does about these cases.

An anecdote. When I sat on a federal grand jury, there was no mincing of words regarding what we were there for. A rubber stamp, mandated by the Constitution, but a rubber stamp nonetheless. From the judges to the attorneys.

Funny thing is, when jurors would ask for more information, subpoenas for example, there was almost a boiler-plate response; "We only need probable cause, not reasonable doubt."

Well, that changed if the attorneys wanted us to sign off on the subpoena.....


With this emergence of LawTube, and Twitter and mass coverage of cases, the people are coming to the realization that the courts and judges have been part of the problem for a very long time. This may just be me here however.

a reply to: IndieA

They seem like they'd be allowable as the attorneys want jurors to be unbiased or favorable to the judicial outcome being sought. Voir dire is important for jury selection so the best use of peremptory or for-cause challenges can be best utilized.

What I don't know is if the questions have to have a nexus to the case to be tried, or if anything goes.

Was kinda funny when a court martial panel I was on was voir dired for a case involving an alleged sexual assault while the accused was black out drunk. A bunch of Diet Colonels and full birds were asked if they've ever been black out drunk. Slowly, heads down, about 75% of our hands went up. Our follow on questions were related to what our culpability was if we did something illegal.

So I'd say, if the questions in the OP's post were of useful value to determine juror bias, one way or the other, especially if that particular bias is prudent to the actual case, they are likely legal.

originally posted by: IndieA

Should these questions be allowed to be asked of potential jurors? Why or why not?


Extra Credit
Identify other questionable, odd, or extreme questions that have been allowed to be asked of potential jurors in other trials.

Those aren't really questions. They are more like accusations or opinions.

For my extra credit ...

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

The question being something like, do you agree with these statements?

Star for the extra credit.

Where are all you ATS paralegals at?

originally posted by: IndieA
Where are all you ATS paralegals at?

at least for one of them, they are studying legal terms, as they were an IRS tax guy/girl. But if you act as if you know, most won't question you. I believe it's "appeal to authority" in the logical fallacy list.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

The question being something like, do you agree with these statements?

Star for the extra credit.

If I were a potential juror, I would ask for a scale. Like 1-5 where 1 is Strongly Agree and 5 is Strongly Disagree. Anyone who gave a straight yes or no answer to any of those questions isn't openminded enough to serve on a jury, in my opinion.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

If I were a potential juror, I would ask for a scale. Like 1-5 where 1 is Strongly Agree and 5 is Strongly Disagree.

I was thinking that, that might actually be how it's done.

In any case, there will be a large pool of potential jurors to choose from.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin later this week. A total of 900 prospective jurors have been asked to report to the Fulton County courthouse, including 450 on Friday and the rest next week.

The judge was highly skeptical of the request and pointed out that there are “decades of case law telling us that we’re not supposed to be asking jurors to give their opinion upfront.”

My understanding of a fair trial is that the jury shouldn't have these opinions "before" the trial begins.

If they can't find 12 people out of 500 who can answer those questions with indifference there doing something wrong.

So yea they should ask those questions.

a reply to: IndieA

Last I knew...the defense can twist these their way to elicit an expected response. I don't think there's much regulating...how they put, and in what way, their questions: it's on them

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Last I knew...the defense can twist these their way to elicit an expected response.

Can you give an example of what you mean by this?

When doing a Google search for "Georgia voir dire regulations", Google AI wants me to tell me:

No question shall be framed so as to require a response from a juror which might amount to a prejudgment of the action. Questions calling for an opinion by a juror on matters are improper. The court will exclude questions which have been answered in substance previously by the same juror.

then:

In limiting voir dire examination by counsel the following restrictions might be considered. Questions should be: Not repetitive; • Designed to indicate a ground for disqualification; • Related to the juror's vocation; • Not designed to prejudice the juror or have the juror prejudge.

Cobb County Voir Dire PDF

Here's the full rule:

Rule 10.1 of the Uniform Rules for the Superior Courts provides in part as follows:
• The Court may propound, or cause to be propounded by counsel, such questions of the jurors as provided in O.C.G.A. § 15-12-133; however, the form, time required and number of such questions is within the discretion of the court. The court may require that questions be asked once only to the full array of the jurors, rather than to every juror – one at a time – provided that the question be framed and the response given in a manner that will provide the propounder with an individual response prior to the interposition of challenge. Hypothetical questions are discouraged, but may be allowed in the discretion of the court. It is improper to ask how a juror would act in certain contingencies or on a certain hypothetical state of facts. No question shall be framed so as to require a response from a juror which might amount to a prejudgment of the action. Questions calling for an opinion by a juror on matters are improper. The court will exclude questions which have been answered in substance previously by the same juror. It is discretionary with the court to permit examination of each juror without the presence of the remainder of the panel. Objections to the mode and conduct of voir dire must be raised promptly or they will be regarded as waived.

Also from the document:

Scope of Voir Dire by Counsel
• Either party may examine a prospective juror as to matters which would illustrate any interest of the juror in the case, including: • Any opinion as to which party should prevail; • The relationship or acquaintance with the defendant or counsel; • Any fact or circumstances indicating an inclination, leaning or bias respecting: • The subject-matter of the action; • Counsel; or • Defendant; Any religious, social or fraternal connections.

Voir Dire
• While it is often stated that the scope of voir dire
examination is within the discretion of the court, in
practice the trial court must exercise extreme care in this
area. In limiting voir dire examination by counsel the
following restrictions might be considered. Questions
should be:
• Not repetitive;
• Designed to indicate a ground for disqualification;
• Related to the juror’s vocation;
• Not designed to prejudice the juror or have the juror prejudge.

a reply to: IndieA

“I think that Trump and his associates tried to steal the election and throw out my vote.”
“I think the First Amendment should not protect people who spread political misinformation about elections.”
“I think every single person who is accused of helping Donald Trump try to overturn the election should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
“I think MAGA Republicans are mostly made up of radicals and White supremacists.”
“I think anyone who publicly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump is guilty of spreading misinformation that undermines our democracy.”

In my opinion, all those questions are leading questions. And some here wonder why I answer a question with a question. Sheesh.

Leading question is a type of question that pushes respondents to answer in a specific manner, based on the way they are framed. More than often, these questions already contain information that survey creator wants to confirm rather than try to get a true and an unbiased answer to that question.

www.questionpro.com...#:~:text=Leading%20question%20is%20a%20type,unbiased%20answer%20to%20that%20question.

Perhaps they should be rephrased as such:

“What are your thoughts about the integrity of the 2020 election and your vote.

“What are your thoughts as to the First Amendment protecting people who spread political misinformation about elections.”

“Should acts of overturing an election be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

“Describe for me who are MAGA Republicans and what are their goals.”

“What are your thoughts on those who spread misinformation that undermines our democracy and should that act be considered a criminal act.”

a reply to: quintessentone

In my opinion, as in relation to the case from the OP, the questions form the OP are pretty spot on for what a lawyer would want to ask a potential juror.

Answering the questions as written here would show a direct bias, either for or against, so called, "MAGA Republicans".

IE: if you reply yes to every question that would show a pretty clear bias against, so called, "MAGA Republicans" and anyone who would support Trump.

Or, if you reply no to all, then yo show a pretty clear bias for, so called, "MAGA Republicans"


Just my humble opinion of the matter

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

In my opinion, as in relation to the case from the OP, the questions form the OP are pretty spot on for what a lawyer would want to ask a potential juror.

Answering the questions as written here would show a direct bias, either for or against, so called, "MAGA Republicans".

IE: if you reply yes to every question that would show a pretty clear bias against, so called, "MAGA Republicans" and anyone who would support Trump.

Or, if you reply no to all, then yo show a pretty clear bias for, so called, "MAGA Republicans"


Just my humble opinion of the matter

The questions seemed to me to be posed to 'potential' jurors, therefore in the selection process of jurors. The lawyers can of course pose those more leading questions at trial, or can they?

a reply to: quintessentone

Pretty sure, in a trial, a lawyer can ask any question as long as it pertains to the case and the matter at hand.

Maybe even during the jury selection process. But I am almost positive those have to be given to and approved by the judge before hand.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Pretty sure, in a trial, a lawyer can ask any question as long as it pertains to the case and the matter at hand.

Maybe even during the jury selection process. But I am almost positive those have to be given to and approved by the judge before hand.

Witnesses are questioned, jurors are not during a trial and I'm guessing leading questions would be objected to by the opposing legal team. We need a lawyer to chime in.

A judge would certainly be able to identify leading questions posed to 'potential' jurors during the selection process.

a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, I am aware that jurors are not questions during the trial. My comment was more of the fact that a lawyer can ask any question they want to those it pertains to. IE witnesses

I would think that you would want to find out if your potential jury had any biases or preconceived notions before the trial. "leading questions" would be good ones to ask as to find out those biases before you get to the trial and you have a juror who is only there to convict no matter the evidence