Instead, I don’t think that the knowledge with which I went into the courtroom was typical of my fellow jurors. I’m the sort of person who enjoys reading not just the Volokh conspiracy but Volokh’s actual papers on constitutional law.

I write speculative fiction as a hobby (and sometimes make money from it) so contentious issues like law and political science and economics make for great launching points for speculative issues. There were other people on the jury who had wrestled with public policy and law and so forth, and like me all of them were tossed from the jury. I may have been a typical person of the jury assembly and the jury pool, but I don’t think I make officers of the court comfortable as a juror.

Mr. Bennett – First, thank you for your thoughts and input on this and your own blog. I enjoyed very much reading your approach and ideas about jury selection. I am fascinated with practices and techniques re: selection in a group setting because I feel it perhaps requires more skill and care than being able to question them individually.

To answer your question as to what I would want to ask a juror individually, I think some of things I had in mind I mentioned in my first post and you touched on at the end of your last post… Any information about the defendant, or the victim, or other witnesses in the case. For that matter, any information about the attorneys – I just read a transcript the other day where a juror told the judge that he knew of/knew the prosecutor, thought he did a wonderful job in his position, and admired his “record”. Or any information about what they know about the case – or even their feelings about it. If a juror is going to be dismissed for any of these reasons, presumably it’s because their knowledge or opinion renders them unable to sit as an impartial juror. Why taint the rest of the panel with that very same knowledge or opinion?

I took notes. Nobody said I couldn’t. I don’t trust my memory all that much so I always have a notebook and a pen with me at all times. I knew what jury nullification was all about. I was very uncomfortable, perhaps even prejudiced, with the defense right from the beginning because his way of leading the jury seemed so less straightforward than the prosecution, so targeted at reaching a game point rather than finding real justice.

Perhaps I should have been quiet and unremarkable, speaking only when asked. Then I would have watched the case all the way through. But in the end I don’t think I could have done the case the justice it was due, and I’m more relieved than unhappy that I was “respectfully” dismissed from the jury.

Here in Texas, it’s generally left up to the juror. I think lawyer could ask the judge to permit questioning out of the presence of the entire panel — the relevant statute (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 35.17) says “When the court in its discretion so directs . . . the state and defendant shall conduct the voir dire examination of prospective jurors in the presence of the entire panel.” This suggests that the court has discretion to do things another way.

What are some things you’d want to question jurors individually about?

I’ve never seen the situation you’ve described. Here’s a headnote from one such case:

“In proceeding in which accused was convicted of capital murder of peace officer and punishment was assessed at death, refusal to quash jury panel or to grant new trial on basis of prospective juror’s statement that another prospective juror had commented that “Somebody ought to-we can get this thing over right away, get a rope” was not error where both of such prospective jurors were excused for cause and there was an absence of any indication that any trial juror heard or was influenced by such comment.”

I’m not afraid of jurors blurting out ignorant opinions. What would concern me more is if a venireperson knew of the defendant and blurted out some inadmissible bit of information about him.

Has anyone experienced a situation where an argument was made that the entire panel was tainted by something blurted out by another venireperson?

I thought I had commented on this, but I don’t see my comment now. See my blog post here instead.

Here in Texas on non-capital cases we do group voir dire (that’s “vore dire,” not “vwahr deer”) — 24 people or so on most misdemeanor cases (in which each side gets 3 peremptory challenges and juries are of 6 people) and 60 or so on most felony cases (in which each side gets 10 peremptory challenges and juries are of 12 people). Larger panels, of course, in high-publicity cases and cases to which people are likely to have strong emotional reactions (child sex abuse allegations, for example).

Judges invite jurors to answer the questions about which they’re sensitive at the bench. On the record, as you correctly imagine, but out of the hearing of the rest of the panel.

It’s hard for me to imagine individual voir dire in a non-capital case. My gut says that group voir dire is better (cetera paribus) in most cases; I’ll give it a little more thought and blog on it.

Mark.