Voir dire screening should I just say I'm a doctor who pays close attention to detail?

The truth

Based on your question, I don't think your intelligence will be an issue.

Especially considering it is "ridiculous", not "rediculous". An intelligent person should know that.

jurydoc

That totally depends on the issues in the trial -- whether it is civil or criminal, and what the side doing the questioning is interested in. As a former jury consultant, with the minimal amount you have divulged here, I wouldn't waste a peremptory challenge on you, not until I'd heard MUCH more.

EDIT: Interesting quote from your "professor." I highly doubt that he has actually performed research on "the majority of lawyers." Nevertheless, no one ever said lawyers were very good at voir dire anyway. As a matter of fact, they are usually quite deficient at it, although they would be loathe to admit to that fact. Attorneys, IF they are taught anything about asking questions they are taught 1) do not ask a question that you don't already know the answer to; and, 2) phrase your question so that it can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." These learned remarks are useless and counterproductive with respect to effective voir dire. With respect to voir dire, attorneys are woefully unaware of how much they don't know.

ask me!!!

Actually one of the unspoken purposes of the voir dire is for the attorneys to get a feel for the personalities and likely views of the people on the jury panel. In some courts the judge asks most of the questions, while in others the lawyers are given substantial latitude and time to ask questions. Some jurors may be dismissed for cause by the judge, and the attorneys may excuse others in "peremptory" challenges without stating any reason. 2) questions asked to determine the competence of an alleged expert witness. 3) any hearing outside the presence of the jury held during trial.

laughter_every_day

Potential jurors don't decide what they get to say. Instead, they answer questions, under oath, subject to perjury. If you claim to be a doctor, you better have a doctorate degree. Every trial is different. In some trials, one side or the other will want the very bright who can follow complex issues. Other trials will have lawyers wanting folks who can evaluate whether testimony is reasonable. Each is different.

Diana B

"should I just say I'm a very opinionated Doctor who pays close attention to detail?"

Say whatever you want - but neither lawyers nor judges really care that much when it comes to personal assessments people make about themselves.

"You wouldn't want to put overly intelligent people on there now would you?"
Why do people set themselves up with stupid comments like that? I guess to satisfy there need to be intellectually and morally superior to the same lawyers that they jump to whenever the coffee gets too hot.

"probably has no knowledge regarding the process of voir dire"

Just remember, you came here with a question - it's no one's fault but your own that you can't stand the answers.

"Please I'll just pretend to be a racist"

...or you can just be yourself, and you'll learn that neither judges nor lawyers like having morons on their panels. Morons take longer to hash out simpler bits of evidence and argument and are more likely to demand read-back or (heaven forbid) dead-lock.

The racist card never works - guys who play that card just get sent back to the jury pool, where they wait for another jury. Eventually they get discharged, after having spent more time waiting there (and getting bounced from other juries) than they would have spent sitting at trial and reaching verdict. Also, if you have any public sector job (or are in line to get one), expect your avowed racism to accompany you beyond the court room.

"Don't tell me that's not how it works either all of my profs are lawyers who do the screening and that's how they explain it."

Must be a very short class. I can see it now - Prof comes in, sets his book down, loosens his tie, clears his throat, tells you that lawyers pick morons, and dismisses the class. Apparently, none of your lawyer-profs ever bothered to pad things out by teaching grammar.

"Well the majority of lawyers tend to not pick doctors, lawyers, or any position that requires a lot of critical thinking because they tend to over evaluate situations."

I find it hard to believe that that's verbatim, and if it's not, you can't quite quote it. My guess is that the professor said something more like "above average critical thinking" (and that's probably as good an interpretation as we'll get until you grace w/the name of said professor, so we can email him ourselves for confirmation).

Apparently, you seem to equate anything below "a lot of critical thinking" (whatever that degree is) w/stupidity. There actually is quite a gap, between being sufficiently intelligent to absorb evidence in a way that makes a just verdict likely, and being so critical that the jurors will lose their focus as to who was at fault or whether the elements of a crime have been established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jurors your professor (or was it Prof?) warned of could have been those who focus on irrelevant details by critically evaluating witnesses in ways that don't reasonably bear on the ultimate question of civil liability or criminal culpability. Doctors or other professionals will focus on whether the defendant acted in a professional manner, even when it's possible to be unprofessional w/o committing conduct which exceeds the bounds of civil or criminal propriety. Such jurors will vote critically, and render verdicts that are unjust.

|â–’â–’Kebert Xelaâ–’â–’|

G an i thawt dat I wuz de only 1 smart enuf too com up wit a plan dat jeanyus

You'll look like a Dolphin pretending to be a Monkey.
They just aren't going to be fooled.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: