Folks, tomorrow begins jury selection in Roger Stone’s trial. A bit of insight on logistics on the selection process before I begin a deposition this morning. The attorneys on both sides submit proposed voir dire or questions to the judge who can use them to flush out issues 1/
which concern each side about prospective jurors. These questions can focus on a myriad of subjects such as employment, politics, and views of our judicial system. The goal is to flush out any biases which might cause a juror to vote for or against a conviction. 2/
As a trial attorney, I always seek jurors who will find synergy with my clients plight while still being able to be fair and impartial. In NYS Court, attorneys actually select their jurors under the auspices of a JHO or Judicial hearing officer if there are issues. In federal
court, the Judge picks the jury with, if they so choose, very little input from the attorneys. It’s a much different procedure. If the prosecutor or defense counsel really don’t like a particular juror that the judge believes could be fair and impartial, they can use 4/
what’s referred to as a preemptory challenge to disqualify a juror. Each side has a limited number of these challenges so they’re used sparingly. The goal is to get as many jurors you don’t like disqualified for cause before using one. DQing for cause revolves around 5/
demonstrating that a prospective juror is so biased one way or another that they can’t be fair and impartial. If the attorney’s questioning - voir dire - can draw that type of bias out - NYS Court - then the juror is dq’ed without waisting a preempt. In Federal Court it’s 6/
more difficult for an attorney to do this since the judge had the ultimate say on who will sit on the jury panel. Attorneys still can use their preempts but they’re that much more valuable at the federal level.
Defense counsel is still prepping the defendant so I have some 7/
Defense counsel is still prepping the defendant so I have some 7/
time to answer any questions. 8X
