Search Site
Menu
Questioning of Jurors


The rules regarding jury selection in Massachusetts for civil and criminal cases are ever changing. About a year ago, the Massachusetts courts began a process called voir dire which allows more questioning of jurors. Many of you may wonder how intrusive the questioning will get?

It is very clear from the literature of the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in Massachusetts, that the dignity and privacy of jurors must be respected. I can assure you that discussions in which potential jurors reveal sensitive information or anything close to it will take place at sidebar. Sidebar is the side of the Judge’s bench and, significantly, out of the hearing of the people in the courtroom except the attorneys and the judge.

Yes, attention to dignity and privacy are contained in the reports and articles that have been promulgated by the committees researching and monitoring methods of jury selection.

But it goes beyond academic-type articles. In my experience, this has been a sacred obligation of all officers of the court. Respect of the potential jurors is of paramount importance. In the surveys of those who have gone through the jury process- and the fact that surveys are taken on this issue is instructive- validate the view that would-be jurors will be respected as will be their privacy concerns.

What is the goal of the jury selection process? The notion is to have a jury that is “indifferent.” When the word indifferent is used, we typically we think of people who could not care less, but that is not what it means in this context. It means those who can decide impartially. Indifferent, again, is synonymous with being fair and impartial. That is the stated goal of jury selection. This new system of attorney conducted voir dire is something that will bring about fairness, or at least further that goal. In civil cases, which I do, about 50% of them have used this more extensive way of screening jurors, according to a recent report. It is a system designed to point out or identify potential juror bias. The goal is that the decisions are made solely on the evidence.

In Massachusetts, in the most important case on jury selection, Commonwealth v. Soares, a criminal case, the prosecution excluded many jurors who were African- American. The defendant was African-American. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it was not appropriate for the prosecution to exclude minority jurors and set aside the conviction in ordering a new trial. For decades, it had always been thought that this would not apply in civil cases but I can tell that there is no ambiguity now. In a recent law review article, by an esteemed Superior Court Judge, Peter Lauriet, in Appendix 1, it says, the guidelines are to ensure the proper exercise of peremptory challenges:

“In Section 1 – Applicability. This checklist is designed for use in both civil and criminal cases…”. The Appendix continues by giving the reasons why an objection to a particular juror is appropriate and the reasons why it is inappropriate. But the fact that it says explicitly that it applies to civil cases can help to reassure us. Civil litigants, those suing for money damages, should be assured of a fair and impartial jury.

An interesting issue arises where a white litigant contests the other side’s exclusion of minority jurors. Courts are indeed alert to that twist. There is pending a civil case in Massachusetts where the defense struck minority jurors in the white plaintiff’s slip and fall lawsuit. Suffolk Superior Court Judge Gregg Pasquale has recently heard arguments from the losing plaintiff that African-Americans were wrongfully excluded from the jury as the defendants exercised four peremptory challenges of African-Americans. A peremptory challenge is where one side can strike a juror even without cause. But, as we’ve learned, there are restrictions on a biased attempt to strike jurors. Many will eagerly await that decision on the granting or denial of a new trial.

Feinberg & Alban, P.C. fervently protects your rights
  • The Boston firm of Feinberg & Alban, P.C. specializes its practice in the area of personal injury.

    The attorneys serve the entire state of Massachusetts in addition to affiliating with lawyers in other states to handle cases outside of Massachusetts.

  • $7.7 Million Award for Feinberg & Alban Client in Personal Injury Trial

    Boston Attorneys Win Highest Injury Verdict in Massachusetts in 2011 & 2012.

Client Reviews
  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Attorney Santora was very attentive to the details of my case. She was prompt in returning either phone calls or emails. Her expertise aided me in making a decision. It was a pleasure to have her represent me.

    Read more

    Karen Trahan

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    It has been a pleasure working with Feinberg & Alban. I have used then in the past and they have always been both professional and kind in handling my cases and always with a successful outcome. They are a great group of lawyers.

    Read more

    Susan Bender

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Just wanted to give a review on my experience. My wife was a pedestrian when hit by a car. During that time it was very difficult. Colleen was helpful and understanding with what we were going through. She made the process easy for us to get compens...

    Read more

    David Handley

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Colleen Santora is the attorney with Feinberg & Alban PC who represented me in my personal injury claim. She was very professional, kind, responsive and communicative throughout the entire process. It was a pleasure to work with her through this pr...

    Read more

    Debbie

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I recently hired Robert Feinberg of Feinberg and Alban. He was professional, knowledgeable, compassionate, reliable and responsive. The results he brought me were truly amazing. I would highly recommend Robert Feinberg to friends and relatives. I ...

    Read more

    Joanie Bell

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form