Selected jurors are generally subjected to a system of examination whereby both the prosecution (or plaintiff, in a civil case) and defence can object to a juror. In
common law countries, this is known as
voir dire.
Voir dire can include both general questions asked of an entire pool of prospective jurors, answered by means such as a show of hands, and questions asked of individual prospective jurors and calling for a verbal answer. In some
jurisdictions, the attorneys for the parties may question the potential jurors; in other jurisdictions, the trial judge conducts the
voir dire. The method and scope of the possible rejections varies between countries: • In
England, these objections would have to be well based, such as the defendant knowing a potential juror, to be allowed. • Some jurisdictions, including
Australia,
France,
New Zealand,
Northern Ireland, the
Republic of Ireland, and the
United States, give both
the defense and
the prosecution a specific number of unconditional
peremptory challenges. No justifications have to be brought to exclude a specific juror. Generally, defense attorneys exclude jurors who have professions or backgrounds similar to that of the victim and who could thus feel an emotional link to them, while prosecuting attorneys exclude jurors who might show affinity to the defendant. However, in the United States, if either party excludes a
minority group member and the other party challenges, under
Batson rules the party exercising the peremptory strike must provide a race-neutral reason for the exclusion (later extended by court rulings to gender-neutral reasons as well). Parties have been known to peremptorily strike jurors based on personal characteristics that wouldn't justify a
strike for cause, but which they believe makes the juror less likely to be sympathetic to their side. • In some jurisdictions, attorneys also have the right to make a
challenge for cause argument to the judge. This is an argument over whether a juror's particular background or beliefs make them biased and therefore unsuitable for service on the jury.
United States In the United States the process of
voir dire is often much more in-depth than in other countries and its practical implementation is somewhat controversial because of this. The amount of privacy that the potential jurors are afforded when asked questions raises the issue of the definition of "
impartial jury". Some people are skeptical as to whether the intensive questioning of potential jurors looks not just for inherent bias but for a potential to be emotionally swayed. On the other hand, proponents argue that this method gives both sides more confidence in the verdict. Generally, the prosecution and the defense want the maximum amount of information about the jurors, so that they can estimate which people are most likely to be sympathetic to their case. Although the practice is opposed by the
American Bar Association in their "Standards on Juror Use and Management", prosecutors, defense attorneys, and
news media can in most cases legally take some of the information jurors disclose, such as their home addresses, and use it to investigate the jurors outside the court through such means as running
criminal background checks or simply driving past the jurors' homes to see what information they can glean from its appearance.
Peremptory challenges In Canada, the number of peremptory challenges (i.e., challenges for which no reason is given) for jury selection was governed by Section 634 of the Criminal Code of Canada. §634 of the
Criminal Code of Canada was repealed by Bill C-75, which came into effect on September 19, 2019, and peremptory challenges have therefore been eliminated.
Challenge for cause Section 638 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the basis upon which an individual juror may be challenged for cause. A party seeking to challenge a prospective juror’s partiality must first demonstrate to the court that there is an ‘air of reality’ to the application. A party may do this by establishing that there is a realistic potential for partiality. Section 640 of the Criminal Code sets out the procedures for dealing with a challenge for cause. A challenge for cause based on the enumerated grounds under section 638, other than the juror’s name not appearing on the panel, will be tried by the last two jurors to be sworn. If no Jurors have been sworn, the judge will appoint two persons to try the challenge for cause. Upon application by the accused, the court may exercise its discretion to exclude all sworn and unsworn jurors from the courtroom until the challenge for cause is decided. The two triers of the challenge for cause must decide the question on a balance of probabilities.
Pre-hearing conference Part XX of the
Criminal Code of Canada provides for Procedure in Jury Trials. Section 625.1 of the
Criminal Code of Canada is the authority for a pre-hearing conference. A pre-hearing conference is a conference held before the beginning of a trial. It is held between the prosecutor and the accused (or counsel for the accused) and is presided over by the court. The purpose of a pre-hearing conference is to promote a fair and expeditious trial. It considers matters that would be better decided before the start of the trial and makes arrangements for the decisions of those matters. Either the prosecutor, defense, or the judge may initiate a motion for a pre-hearing conference. A pre-hearing conference is
mandatory for any case to be tried by a jury (per s. 625.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada). It must be presided over by a judge of the court that will try the accused and must be held in accordance with the rules of court made under sections 482 and 482.1. Case Law: A pre-hearing conference judge does not have the jurisdiction to review the Crown disclosure decisions or to order disclosure. ==Death qualification==