Voir dire seems to be a missed opportunity on both sides of the courtroom. I’ve seen defense attorneys almost “waive” voir dire (“The prosecutor and judge have asked all the ‘good questions’ so I just have a few…”)

Or the defense counsel will repeat the questions – maybe adding a twist. This is worse – the jurors get annoyed (Weren’t you listening?) as does the judge.

What are your opinions about politicians?
What are your opinions about lawyers?

Considering the judge in this courtroom is both a politician and a lawyer, will these opinions make it difficult or impossible for you to follow her instructions on the law?

(now, if the judge happens to have a used car for sale…)

Maybe the lawyer was probably trying to get to this. . .

Q: And if you could be stuck on this island with either her honor the judge, or a pack of rabid hyenas, which would you choose?

The best I can figure is that he was trying to get the jurors to look past the majesty of the courtroom. It didn’t work.

I wonder what would happen if, after hearing the state’s nauseating double “GOOD MORNING,” the defense started it’s voir dire by asking:

“Before I get started, I’d like to ask you a very simple question. I’ve wondered about this for years, and it’s never dawned on me to ask it until today.

“Remember the very first thing out of the government lawyer’s mouth this morning? When the government lawyer asked you to repeat “good morning” with more enthusiam than your initial response?

“Did anyone find that to be cute, or original? Did it make any of you feel like you were being patronized, or being treated like a child in school? Why do you think they do that?

“Did any of you find that opening to be somewhat offensive, or condescending, or even inappropriate, considering the serious nature of our business at hand? Wouldn’t that be more appropriate at a seminar, or a pep rally?

“Was the prosecution’s introduction original and inspiring to you, or just cheesy? I’ve honestly wondered about this for years, since it seems that every government lawyer does it on every single case. Does anyone besides me think an opening like that is inappropriate and cheesy in this type of serious situation?

“It’s OK to answer honestly. That’s what jury selection is all about – being honest. The prosecution makes that opening in every trial, so I think we’d all really like to know.

“Does anyone think that the government should probably just skip that technique and get straight to the point?

“Well, instead of trying to manipulate you into shouting “good morning” for me louder than you did for them, let’s talk about some really important issues in this case…”

You’d have to be very cautious in choosing the right case to try this, and it could easily backfire on the defense, but you could sure irritate the spit out of the prosecution…

I know that prosecutors think the “Good afternoon . . . GOOD AFTERNOON” bit is cute, but I wonder if the jurors think so, or if it comes across as condescending and insipid.

Another thing I would add to what you have articulately written is that there is widespread confusion by ADA’s about improper commitment questions. First, they don’t know (or don’t care) when they are doing it. Second, I have found they generally do not realize when it is being done back to them. I say commit jurors as much as you can, and go crazy objecting when the State tries to do the same.

1) No. There was lots of room for improvement, but I was too focused on the jurors’ responses (she elicited more responses from the jurors than the prosecutrix) to take notes.

2) Let me give this some thought.

Two points:
1) Any notes on defense counsel’s voire dire?

2) I’m just afraid of jurors not answering questions like: “Do you have any preconceived notions of what a sex offender looks like” truthfully in front of others.