Is justice really blind in our courts?

I was on jury duty last week. After being transferred from the Grand Jury to the Petit Jury, I was called with 15 other potential jurors to a courtroom for Voir Dire. Eight of us sat in the jury box and eight sat behind the litigants. The judge asked us if we knew any of the litigants or any lawyers in the case or any lawyers that worked for the same law firm as any of the lawyers in the case. The case was a civil lawsuit, having to do with an automobile accident and medical bills which were allegedly caused by the accident.

Then the plaintiff’s attorney asked if anyone had sued, been sued, had an injury that required surgery, had physical therapy, and other such questions. If anyone said yes, then they asked more specific questions, some very personal. He also asked more questions about any connections to the legal profession that anyone had. One man said his brother was a lawyer and another juror was a legal secretary.

The defense attorney kept asking us a question about whether or not we would think that it is possible for someone to exaggerate an injury in order to win a case. The plaintiff’s attorney kept objecting, and the defense attorney kept rephrasing it. A side bar was called, the defense attorney rephrased the question again, and the plaintiff’s attorney objected again. This was an obvious ploy by the defense to plant an idea in our heads. He knew that it would be objected to and sustained.

Each lawyer seemed to try to act like they didn’t know what they were doing in order to gain our sympathy, clamoring for every inch of advantage. How pathetic.

Then the defense attorney asked us more such questions. He asked me about my occupation. I gave a technical answer about what I do (I am a scientist). One juror asked to speak with the lawyers and the judge in private and when they were done, the judge said that this juror was dismissed “with cause”. One of the other eight potential jurors was called to replace him. Then each attorney grilled this juror as they had done us.

Each attorney was allowed to remove up to three jurors without giving a reason (a peremptory challenge). The plaintiff’s attorney declined this opportunity, but the defense attorney challenged the man whose brother was a lawyer. Then I was the next to go.

I think that it is unfair to force potential jurors to answer such personal questions that have nothing to with the case. The judge’s questions were reasonable for the most part. I think that all Voir Dire questions should limited to those which determine if a juror or someone the juror knows would stand to gain anything by a certain result in the case. Attorneys should not be allowed to choose or reject jurors based on their experiences, occupation, or beliefs. I think it is especially unfair to remove jurors because they have knowledge of some subject, such as science, so that this will be to their advantage if the preponderance of scientific evidence is in favor of the opposing side. I think that peremptory challenges should be limited to one for criminal cases and none for civil cases.