By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Every attorney who has conducted voir dire has likely lived through this scenario: After carefully and comprehensively developing a clear reason why a potential juror cannot be fair to you, the other side or the judge just steps in with a casual, “But you can follow the instructions and base your
Counter-Rehabilitate: 6 Ways to Make Your Cause Challenge Stick Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: (Shared from The Pulse, Holland & Hart) My experience says “harder,” and that experience is reinforced to some extent, but also challenged to some extent, by an analysis conducted by researchers from UCLA and the Max Planck Institute. Steven Clayman and Mathew Fox (2025) conducted a review of video from more
Are Judges Making it Harder or Easier for Jurors to Admit Bias? Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: In a recent jury selection — and, pretty much, in every jury selection — I have watched as several on the panel would share various connections, attitudes, or experiences that could quite reasonably point to that person holding a bias in the case, before confidently declaring that they could “set it aside,” and
Don’t Just Ask IF a Potential Juror Can “Set Aside” Bias, Ask Them HOW They’ll Do It Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm As counsel scans the panel of potential jurors, one might stand out based on the gut level thought: a “that guy just makes me nervous” kind of reaction. Basing your strike decisions on a “bad feeling” that lies outside of articulable factors of experience or attitude certainly isn’t unknown. But it
Have a Definite (Explicit and Quantified) Reason for Your Strikes Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: How effectively does counsel and the court question potential jurors as part of the selection process? New research in the journal Language in Society (Clayman & Fox, 2025) provides some additional perspective on that question. The two authors, coming from the academic perspective of conversation analysis, reviewed transcripts from more than 100 question and
Oral Voir Dire: Know Your Purpose Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Cause challenges play an important role in jury selection. When a potential juror has an acknowledged barrier to basing their decision on a neutral understanding of the evidence and the law, they should not serve. However, when lawyers are exploring potential cause issues, I often see them taking an approach that
Follow Five Steps to a Successful Cause Challenge Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: A couple of weeks ago, I was in court to help pick a jury in a high-value case. During that early phase of jury selection, the gallery was full to capacity with potential jurors, the counsel and parties were present, the clerks bustling, but not much else was happening. As we
Attend to Your Jury Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Early on in the jury selection process, the judge will often ask the panel, “We all know that jury duty can be inconvenient, but who believes they would experience an unreasonable hardship by serving in this case?” Hands will shoot up. In some cases, the claims make an obvious case for
Know When to Go Easy on Hardship Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Here’s a welcome development: The state of Maryland has embarked on a pilot program to test out the effects of expanded voir dire. In many parts of the country (looking at you, Arizona) the ability of litigants to explore and deselect jurors based on bias is being reined in, with some
Guest post by Josh Haby: When I received my jury summons a month or so ago, I was elated. But the feeling was brief, as I quickly concluded my service would likely end as quickly as it would begin. I’m a Litigation Consultant, I work for a law firm, I studied Psychology and Law, and
See Your Case from the Jury’s Eyes: My Time in the Box Read More »