Opinion ID: 4556341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury-Questionnaire Cover Page

Text: {¶ 61} In his second proposition of law, Kirkland contends that the cover page of the jury questionnaire discouraged candid responses and thereby impaired the adequacy of voir dire. The cover page contained the following notice: POTENTIAL JURORS  Please be aware that the following questionnaire you will fill out may be subject to review by the media or others pursuant to a public records request.  Please also note that no actual identification information will be released. Any information you provide on your questionnaires that could be used to individually identify you would be deleted or blacked out before any questionnaires would be released. (Underlining and boldface sic.) Before voir dire, the defense requested that the cover page be omitted. The trial court denied the request. {¶ 62} Kirkland argues that by giving the prospective jurors notice that the questionnaires were subject to disclosure, the cover page exerted a “chilling effect” on them, discouraging candid answers by calling their attention to the possibility that their answers could be made public. But we have said that “trial courts should    conspicuously advise prospective jurors in writing that    their responses may be subject to public disclosure.” State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Bond, 98 Ohio St.3d 146, 2002-Ohio-7117, 781 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 26. 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 63} Moreover, the prospective jurors were not told only that the questionnaires were subject to disclosure; they were also told that personal identifying information would be deleted before any disclosure. In light of that assurance, Kirkland’s claim of a “chilling effect” amounts to speculation. The trial court’s suggestion that prospective jurors concerned about privacy would find the assurance comforting—and as a consequence be more candid than otherwise—is at least equally plausible. {¶ 64} And the trial court affirmatively encouraged candor when it told the prospective jurors to “answer the questionnaires as if you were answering the questions in the courtroom” and instructed, “[T]he oath that you took earlier to well and truly answer all questions applies to    the questionnaire.” The prospective jurors understood that they were sworn to answer the questionnaire truthfully. The trial court reasonably declined to assume that the cover-page notice would cause prospective jurors to violate their oath. {¶ 65} Finally, we note that the jury questionnaire is not the sole, or even the principal, means by which litigants learn about prospective jurors. It is the voir dire itself—the face-to-face exchange between the prospective jurors and counsel—that is central to obtaining an impartial jury. The voir dire process gave defense counsel a full opportunity to question the prospective jurors and thereby elicit complete and candid answers from them. {¶ 66} The trial court did not deny Kirkland an adequate opportunity for voir dire by including the cover page with the questionnaire. Kirkland’s second proposition of law is overruled.