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
  • lawyers
    5.0/5.0

    Working with this firm was a great experience, they were very attentive to my case and needs ; the results of my case was better that I expected. Thanks to much to all the lawyers involved Sincerely S. Ponce

    Read more

    Client

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I loved collaborating with my attorney. From day one it felt like teamwork: us against the world, david vs. goliath. There was an easy rapport, free flow of communication, yet she remained the consummate professional at all times. As a first-time pla...

    Read more

    Oyie Ndzie

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Excellent Firm! I cannot give enough praise to Colleen Santora who handled our case . Responsive, professional a true attorney who cares. The entire firm put it all together however Colleen brought it all to the table . Five stars does not seem to sa...

    Read more

    ed thomas

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Atty Santora & staff were very responsive and handled my personal injury case with concern and professional care. I will recommend this firm for legal services.

    Read more

    Regina Benton

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I had a wonderful experience working with Robert Feinberg and Colleen Santoro. I never once had doubts about how my case would be handled. I knew I was in great hands with both of them. I was always informed and felt confident in their ability to re...

    Read more

    Betsy Rose

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form