Juror Bias (Continued from page 24)


ing particular issues and permitting the parties to submit proposed questionnaires (American Bar Association American Jury Project). Here in Maryland, the Council on Jury Use and Management concluded: “Advance written questionnaires for jury panels should be utilized While expanded voir dire and supple- mental juror questionnaires do not solve all the problems inherent in the current method of voir dire in Maryland, they go a long way toward doing a better job of uncovering juror bias over the present sys- tem. Since the goal of voir dire is to help both judge and counsel identify bias that can taint jury deliberations, these two rec- ommendations should be implemented as soon as possible statewide.


References and Endnotes


American Bar Association American Jury Project, Principles for Juries and Jury Tri- als (2004).


Andrews, Lori B. (1982). Mind Control in the Courtroom. Psychology Today, 66- 70, 73.


Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of Indepen- dence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority. Psy- chological Monographs, 70, #416.


Baldus, David C. (2001). The Use of Peremptory Challenges in Capital Mur-


der Trials: A Legal and Empirical Analy- sis. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 1-172.


Bono, Randall A. (2000). A Former Judge’s Perspective on Voir Dire. www.illinoisbar.org.


Bonora, Beth & Krauss, Elissa, Jurywork: Systematic Techniques (1979) (National Jury Project).


Broeder, Dale W. (1965). Voir Dire Ex- aminations: An Empirical Study. Southern California Law Review, 38, 503- 528.


Bush, Neal (1976). The Case for Expan- sive Voir Dire. Law and Psychology Review. 2, 9-26.


Catts, Douglas B. (2001). Advocate, Winter issue.


Jury Bias.


Chaikin,A.L., Derlega, V.J., & Miller, S.J. (1976). Effects of Room Environment on Self-Disclosure in a Counseling Analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 479-481.


Christie, Richard, Affidavit in re Coordi- nated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Action (D. Minn, 1974), 410 F.Supp. 659.


Council on Jury Use and Management, Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, Report and Recommendations (April 12, 2000).


Diamond, Shari Seidman (1997). Real- istic Responses to the Limitations of


Batson v. Kentucky. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 7, 77-95.


Dillehay, Ronald C., Affidavit Concern- ing Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire in re United States v. Arvizu, et al. (E.D. Okla- homa 92-032-5).


Fargo, Marjorie S., Affidavit in Support of Motions for Specialized Jury Selection Procedures, United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Caro- lina New Bern Division (1989).


Festinger, Leon (1954). A Theory of So- cial Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.


Frederick, Jeffrey T., The Psychology of the American Jury (1987) (Michie).


Haney, Charles, Affidavit in Support of Defendant’s Motion Regarding Voir Dire Proecedures in reMaryland v. Sailes (Cir- cuit Court, Prince George’s County, Maryland, No. 82-352).


Hans, Valerie P. (1986). The Conduct of Voir Dire: A Psychological Analysis. Jus- tice System Journal, 11, 40-58.


Hans, Valerie P. & Jehle, Alayna (2003). Avoid Bald Men and People with Green Socks? Other Ways to Improve the Voir Dire Process in Jury Selection. Chicago- Kent Law Review, 78, 1179-1201.


Hastie, Reid (1991). Is Attorney-Con- ducted Voir Dire an Effective Procedure for the Selection of Impartial Juries? American University Law Review, 40, 703-712.


Heaney, Lois (2003). Jury Selection in


the Era of Tort Reform. National Jury Project unpublished paper.


Iobst, Frederick W. (2001). The Goal of an Expanded Voir Dire. Advocate, Win- ter issue.


Jones, Susan E. (1987). Judge Versus At- torney Conducted Voir Dire: An Empirical Investigation of Juror Candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 131-146.


Jordan, Walter E. (1981). A Trial Judge’s Observations about Voir Dire Examina- tion. Defense Law Journal, 30, 223-247.


Loomis, Tamara (2002). Scandals Rock Juror Attitudes: Enron/WorldCom Ripple Seen Across the Board. National Law Journal, October 21, A30.


Matlon, Ronald J., Communication in the Legal Process (1988) (Holt, Rinehart & Winston).


Matlon, Ronald J. & Facciola, Peter C. (1986). Voir Dire by Judges and Attor- neys: A Study of the Role Expectations of


26 Trial Reporter Fall 2005


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52