DOJ-OGR-00005221.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page16of17 This application is not seeking to conduct unduly invasive questioning, to “pre-try” the case to the venire, to create impressions or sympathies which will help either party during the trial, or to unreasonably extend the time for jury selection. The Court can restrict attorneys to posing open-ended questions to identify bias, prejudice and preconceptions, subject to reasonable time limits. Long ago, the Supreme Court observed: Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of mind. For the ascertainment of this mental attitude of appropriate indifference, the Constitution lays down no tests and procedure is not chained to any ancient and artificial formula. United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 145-146 (1936). Like impartiality, bias, prejudice, and preconceptions are mental states, making them all the more difficult to identify and assess when a prospective juror is not forthcoming in revealing these mental attitudes. Limited attorney- conducted voir dire will help uncover any potential bias in the jury pool. CONCLUSION Voir dire is a mutual search between lawyers and the Court to determine whether a particular individual can ensure integrity of the trial process in each case. In the words of a federal appeals judge: We would, as judges, have to ignore what we know as men to assume that only the law and the naked facts carry the burden of persuasion. Psychology governs human affairs even in the courtroom... Our system of justice is deprived of its fullest potential when the lawyer is denied the right to examine veniremen in an adversary setting. Honorable Donald P. Lay (8th Cir.) “Jn a Fair Adversary System, the Lawyer Should Conduct the Voir Dire of the Jury.” LS DOJ-OGR-00005221