Voir dire is an opportunity for lawyers to introduce jurors to their overall theory of the case and its various themes. The preferred way to voir dire is to ask as many open-ended questions as possible, letting the juror do most of the talking, because the answers make it easier to identify jurors who, as a result of their life experiences, are likely to be entrenched in their beliefs and resistant to the defense theory of the case. Instead of leading questions which call for a "yes" or "no" answer, like, "You'd agree, wouldn't you, that (some principle is correct)" it is better to ask "What is your opinion about..." or "How do you feel about ..."
No answer is a "bad" answer for the defense if it reveals a juror's true feelings. It is far better to get an undesirable answer on voir dire, when the lawyer has the ability to excuse the juror through a peremptory challenge, than not learning about the bias until after the trial when the client is in jail. If a juror gives a "bad" answer on voir dire, the lawyer can simply thank the juror for his or her candor and can ask if anyone else has the same views or other views.
Gerry Spence revolutionized the way lawyers approach voir dire. His method has become the standard. Here's an article explaining the "new voir dire" in understandable terms.
So far, all the questioning today has been by the prosecutor. I heard lots of "You'd agree, wouldn't you..." and "Does everyone else agree?" He also tends to lecture the jury on what the Constitution and law say. That's very old school. I expect it will get much more interesting when the defense gets it chance. The defense jury consultant, Robert Hirschhorn, who has been sitting at defense counsel throughout, is one of the best. He's no stranger to very high profile cases. He was Michael Tigar's jury consultant in the Terry Nichols case. The jury they picked came back with life in prison over the death penalty, which was a huge win.
The parents of both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were in the front row today (across the aisle from each other.)
As to the racial composition of the 40 jurors who passed the first round, reporters attending the proceedings have given widely disparate descriptions, mostly because they are judging by appearance. One news outlet says there are 8 Hispanics, while another says there are 2. They all use the terms White, Black, Hispanic and mixed race. But a juror that one organization will put in the Black or Hispanic category, another will deem to be "mixed race." As to one juror, there has been diverging opinions as to whether she is Black or Hispanic. Another has been variously described by those in the courtroom as white, Hispanic and mixed race.
The panel has 26 females and 14 males. The media hasn't focused much on age, but I think it's interesting that there are only 9 who seem to reporters to be under age 30 while 15 appear to be over 50. (None of those under 30 have been described by reporters in court as African American.)
I expect the questioning will be far more revealing and interesting when it turns from biographical details (do you have any relatives who are lawyers, is one question the prosecutor asked this morning) to their views on self-defense and other issues in the case.
