About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


6 Law & Hum. Behav. 1 (1982)

handle is hein.journals/lwhmbv6 and id is 1 raw text is: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1982 The Effects of Variations in Voir Dire Procedures in Capital Murder Trials* Michael T. Nietzelt and Ronald C. Dillehayt Psychologists and social scientists must begin to evaluate the effects of the jury selection methods they employ. These methods include a preference for attorney questioning of individual, sequestered venirepersons. This study examines the effects of four types of voir dire on sustained challenges for cause by defense and prosecution attorneys. Using transcripts and our own notes we classified thirteen capital cases, comprising approximately one- third of similar trials in Kentucky for the period 1975-1980, according to whether venirepersons were questioned individually or en masse, and whether sequestration was used for voir dire. Results show significantly more sustained defense challenges for cause under conditions of individual sequestration of venirepersons during voir dire than when voir dire is conducted en masse in open court. Other effects are examined, and generalization of the results is discussed. We interpret the outcomes to show that bias in potential jurors is best revealed when venirepersons are examined while individually sequestered. INTRODUCTION Psychologists' participation in the courtroom is burgeoning. Certainly the most visible and controversial function of juristic psychologists is their participation in scientific jury selection, an activity first encountered in the late 1960s. Although originally confined to the showcase trials of political activists and notorious defendants, scientif- ic jury selection has now trickled down to defendants involved in less celebrated cases or what one practitioner has termed the typical criminal case (Bennett, 1977). A growing literature describing psychological approaches to jury selection is now avail- able (Bennett, 1977; Ginger, 1977; National Jury Project, 1979; Nietzel & Dillehay, *This research was conducted during a sabbatical leave by the first author from the University of Kentucky to the Kentucky Office of Public Advocacy, whose assistance in support of this investigation is gratefully acknowl- edged. We would like to express special appreciation to the staff attorneys of the Kentucky Office of Public Advocacy, who provided valuable help and guidance at several stages of this research. This research was also supported by a James McKeen Cattell Foundation Sabbatical Award to the second author. tDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky. 0147-7307/82/0300-001$03.00/0 © 1982 Plenum Publishing Corporation