I don’t have any specific data on the frequency of 1-day selection vs. 4-day selection or some such, because I don’t think anyone keeps track.

I do know that last week in my courthouse a trial for assault on an officer and interfering was completed (jury selection to verdict) in one day.

In Mass, a panel of jurors are brought in. The judge asks a series of routine questions and may ask additional questions if requested by either counsel. Attorneys strike jurors based on very bare bones questionaires. One has very little sense of the jurors’ education, experiences, beliefs, and biases — all of which may be critical in deciding how to present evidence and at what level of detail. I have been on a Mass jury — and it is an intimidating experience to decide whether one may be biased, and if so, whether and how to speak up to discuss the issue with the courts and counsel.

In CT, there is individual voir dire, and a chance for each juror to talk with the attorneys, and for each attorney to guage the juror’s attentiveness, ability to follow oral questions, education, experience, and so on. It is a slower system, but one in which it seems more jurors are willing to admit that they have concerns about bias, or publicity, or their own safety, and for those concerns to be openly addressed.

Yes, capital jury selection takes a long time. It should. A conviction or an aquittal in any case is a life-changing experience the defendant, and the victim and/or the victim’s family. In a capital case, the stakes are even higher, and the psychological issues regarding juror beliefs on capital punishment, mitigation, and reasonable doubt all much more critical and much more nuanced. As the saying goes — you can have reliable, cheap, or fast — pick one. I’d pick reliable, myself.

In my last out of state jury trial, one juror wrote on her quesionnaire that was prejudiced against all races. Upon further questioning by the judge, she merely repeated her assertion. “It’s because of my work,” she added. The judge decided that because she was prejudiced against ALL races, she was unbiased and impartial. No further questions were asked, despite the request of both prosecutor and defense counsel.

This example is not an isolated incident. This is commonplace. Is this really how we want jury selection to take place? Based upon my experience, I will wholeheartedly argue that the quality of justice in Connecticut (as it pertains to jury selection) is superior to that of its neighboring states.

I wonder whether there is any correlation between individual voir dire and mistrials declared as a result of juror issues, and/or whether there are fewer postconviction juror issues that arise in CT? I wonder how the conviction rates compare, especially with respect to more serious charges.

Finally (and I am not directing this comment at Norm Pattis personally, as I have no idea how he conducts voir dire), I get the sense that some folks who criticize individual voir dire don’t know how to do it properly. If you’re doing most of the talking, not asking any open-ended questions, and simply trying to “educate” the venireperson, then I do understand how individual voir dire seems not to provide any great benefit to your client or to the system. What you’re saying and getting from that person, you could easily get from a panel. On the other hand, to watch savvy and talented attorneys conduct individual voir dire is to really understand and appreciate its value. Haven’t you ever seen a juror, after 15-20 minutes of questioning – some questions even seeming to ask the same thing in different ways – say something that totally surprises you? It might have taken 3 questions, but suddenly, you’ve uncovered a feeling or bias that you weren’t aware of before. Maybe the venireperson wasn’t aware of it him/herself. In some cases, you can rehabilitate, educate and deal with it, but in others, we now know the juror can’t serve. This is just one example of one of many reasons I believe individual voir dire to be far superior to panel.

Having selected scores of juries in both the federal and state courts I stand by opinion: I see no difference in the quality of juries in the state and federal system. It is hard to know whether you have ever done group voir dire since you write under a pseudonym. But I suspect you are a state-court practitioner and have experience only with individual sequestered voir dire. I understand your opinion: Your mom is the prettiest and smartest and bestest woman in the whole wide world. But those with broader experience know otherwise.

Yes, other jurisdictions permit individual sequestered voir dire upon a showing of good cause. No harm in retaining that. But permitting it is a matter of right wastes time and money, and permits “cumbersome bloviating” in routine cases. Connecticut is the only state in the nation that requires it in every case. And no one, not even you, argues that the quality of justice in Connecticut surpasses that of other states.