Opinion ID: 894707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Purpose of Voir Dire

Text: The Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution guarantees litigants a right to trial by a fair and impartial jury [14] and authorizes the Legislature to pass laws to maintain its purity and efficiency. [15] The Legislature thus has authority to pass laws establishing those qualified to serve, consistent with the right to a jury trial. [16] To that end, the Legislature has established general juror qualifications relating to age, citizenship, literacy, sanity, and moral character. [17] The Legislature also has established bases for juror disqualification, including those relating to witnesses, relatives, and interested parties. [18] Among these bases, the Legislature has disqualified from jury service anyone who has a bias or prejudice in favor of or against a party in the case. [19] Voir dire examination protects the right to an impartial jury by exposing possible improper juror biases that form the basis for statutory disqualification. [20] Thus, the primary purpose of voir dire is to inquire about specific views that would prevent or substantially impair jurors from performing their duty in accordance with their instructions and oath. [21] In addition, this Court recognizes that trial courts should allow broad latitude to counsel to discover any bias or prejudice by the potential jurors so that peremptory challenges may be intelligently exercised. [22] A peremptory challenge, commonly referred to as a `strike,' is defined by rule 232 as one `made to a juror without assigning any reason therefor.' [23] Peremptory challenges allow parties to reject jurors they perceive to be unsympathetic to their position. [24] The long-established practice of voir dire inquiry for use in exercising peremptory challenges acknowledges the subjectivity inherent in jury selection voir dire does not lend itself to formulaic management. As one authority has observed: [T]he scope of the voir dire examination quite obviously can not be bounded by inflexible rules of thumb, for of all the delicate psychological factors inherent in a jury trial perhaps none is more essentially subjective and hence less submissive to dogmatic limitations. [25] Peremptory strikes are not intended, however, to permit a party to select a favorable jury. [26] Counsel's latitude in voir dire, while broad, is constrained by reasonable trial court control. [27] Such control is necessary because, [t]hough the motive of a peremptory challenge may be to protect a private interest, the objective of jury selection proceedings is to determine representation on a governmental body. [28] Thus, the exercise of jury strikes is not solely a private endeavor: [W]hen private litigants participate in the selection of jurors, they serve an important function within the government and act with its substantial assistance. [29]