Court Opinion

ID: 9477635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:27:52.312761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:58.485315
License: Public Domain

LAY, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I am pleased to join Judge McMillian’s well-reasoned opinion. I write separately, however, because of counsel’s suggestion that the trial court erred in foreclosing counsel’s personal participation in the voir dire.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 47(a) provides the trial court the discretion to permit counsel to conduct voir dire or to allow counsel and the court both to conduct voir dire. My experience is that most trial judges, both federal and *1152state, allow counsel to participate in the voir dire. On the other hand I fully realize that some federal judges feel that counsel should not participate in the voir dire primarily because (1) counsel will attempt to prejudice potential jurors and (2) reasonable time limitations will be violated by lawyers abusing the right to question the panel. It seems to me the middle ground of allowing both counsel and court to participate in the voir dire is the most fair and flexible means to provide a fair selection of jurors. Furthermore, joint participation more readily conforms to the flexibility and contemplation of rule 47(a).
My colleagues in Hicks v. Mickelson, 835 F.2d 721 (8th Cir.1987), have suggested otherwise. Their “additional comments” were not necessary to that opinion anymore than my present comments are necessary to this opinion. I do, however, disagree with them. In thirty-eight years as a lawyer and occasional trial judge I have participated in literally hundreds of voir dire of juries. I say this not to suggest that my judgment is any better than theirs. They simply speak from their experience and I speak from my own. We are all products of our experiences. However, aside from our own personal backgrounds, we are all governed by a rule of procedure which does not provide an inflexible view urged by the panel in Hicks.
Rule 47(a) was drafted in contemplation of lawyer participation; its origin is not of singular experience, but represents an empirical view of distinguished lawyers and judges who constituted the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules were recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States and approved by the Supreme Court. Although rule 47(a) allows the court to conduct voir dire it certainly does not, however, preclude participation by the trial lawyer, as my colleagues suggest the better policy to be. Rather, rule 47(a) unequivocally states that trial judges may either permit attorneys to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or they may conduct the examination themselves, allowing counsel to jointly participate by propounding additional questions for them to ask.
The grave danger of a voir dire controlled solely by the judge is found in the unnecessary reversal of cases where the judge offers allegedly neutral, flat and non-penetrating questions to potential jurors.1 Where the judge alone conducts the voir dire it generally provides a paucity of information to allow a judgmental exercise for peremptory challenges by counsel. Furthermore, if lawyers are continually denied a fair participation in voir dire, inflexible legislation requiring voir dire solely by lawyers may well be the answer. See S. 677, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., 129 Cong.Rec. S2122 (1983) (amending Fed.R.Civ.P. 47(a) to require that each side’s counsel be afforded at least thirty minutes to question prospective jurors). Voter registration lists contain a far greater number of trial lawyers than trial judges.
Any busy trial judge must candidly admit that he or she knows far less of a given case at the time voir dire commences than the lawyers who have prepared the case for months or years. This reason alone compels the conclusion that lawyers should participate in voir dire. Notwithstanding this basic concern, I fail to see the logic of the reasons given to exclude the trial lawyer from the most important phase of the adversary process.
It is argued that many trial lawyers are not skilled in voir dire of juries. I intend no disrespect, but neither are many trial *1153judges. Nevertheless, if the lawyer persists in asking the same repetitive questions to each juror, the lawyer can be directed by the court to limit specific questions to individual jurors. If, however, the trial judge persists in asking innocuous questions there is little the lawyer can do.
As the Hicks panel points out, some lawyers also foolishly claim that effective voir dire can win cases by “prejudicing juries.” Such ill-strategy provides a denigrating view of the jury system. My experience has been that most lawyers who set out with such strategy meet resentment from the composite intelligence of the average jury. Although this professed strategy may provide a great display of vanity at trial seminars, most skilled lawyers will advise against it. Voir dire is necessary and most effective when it seeks to disclose latent prejudice and bias of potential jurors. This critical information is seldom produced in judge-offered interrogatories.
It is also argued that allowing lawyers to conduct voir dire will abuse the time limitations inherent in a trial. This also is unrealistic. If a trial judge concludes that a lawyer is abusing the process by either “prejudicing” the jury or abusing its time limitations, the judge can effectuate reasonable rules of procedure to curtail the abuse. Proper and experienced judicial oversight is exercised continually in the course of a trial. The court provides reasonable control in discovery, in opening statements, excessive and repetitive direct examination, abusive cross-examination and in limitation of content and time of closing arguments. The conduct of voir dire is no different.
The rigid, inflexible control suggested by my colleagues in Hicks and adopted by many federal trial judges is to have the lawyers submit written questions for the court to propound to the jury. My trial experience compels me to conclude that this is akin to taking a bath with your clothes on or listening to the London Philharmonic play Beethoven’s Fifth with ear plugs in the ear. I think most lawyers will agree that this is mere rhetorical exercise and totally ineffective. The neutral response from the prospective juror does little to inform the lawyer as to the possibility of latent prejudice. These responses are a far cry from the spontaneity of the give and take between lawyers and jurors in an informal, relaxed, and probative discussion of the subject matter.2 It seems to me that rule 47(a) contemplates more than a rigid, innocuous “please raise your hand if it applies to you” process.
The critical importance of a truly fair and impartial jury is essential to due process in the adversary system and basic to our conception of jurisprudence. See Alderman v. Austin, 695 F.2d 124, 130 (5th *1154Cir.1983) (Fay, J., dissenting) (“That the voir dire process is vital to the fairness of jury trials is beyond cavil.”) (citing United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, 1226 (D.C.Cir.1973)). Voir dire was devised to insure to the fullest extent possible that only a fair and impartial jury will be selected. Effective voir dire examination can develop a prospective juror’s state of mind and reveal many subtle factors which can influence the juror, many of which are seldom brought out when lawyers are precluded from participating in the examination of the venire. This not only enables the court to determine actual bias, but also affords counsel the essential facts necessary to intuitively exercise his or her peremptory challenges. Photostat Corporation v. Ball, 338 F.2d 783, 786 (10th Cir.1964). The permissive nature of rule 47(a) is one of common sense and I would hope more trial judges would adhere to it. I believe this would tend to reduce claims of error such as those that occurred here.
Upon remand I would hope the trial judge, in the exercise of his discretion under rule 47(a), would allow the lawyer to participate in the conduct of the voir dire examination.

. See United States v. Davis, 583 F.2d 190, 198 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Bear Runner, 502 F.2d 908 (8th Cir.1974); United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340, 366-70 (7th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 970, 93 S.Ct. 1443, 35 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973); United States v. Banks, 687 F.2d 967, 982 (7th Cir.1982) (Swygert, J., dissenting) ("trial judge[’s] * * * questions [were] general, rhetorical * * * [and] totally insufficient.”); see also United States v. Hill, 738 F.2d 152, 153-54 (6th Cir.1984) ("voir dire * * * tends to be extensive and probing, operating as a predicate for the exercise of peremptories * * * 'one of the most important of the rights secured * * * ’ ”) (quoting Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 218-19, 85 S.Ct. 824, 835, 13 L.Ed. 2d 759 (1964)); United States v. Rossbach, 701 F.2d 713, 716 (8th Cir.1983) (“ ‘[a] searching voir dire is a necessary incident to the right to an impartial jury * * *'") (citation omitted).

. There are so many areas of possible bias jurors unknowingly fail to disclose in response to innocuous questions frequently propounded by the court. Only when the attorney has the opportunity to explore the situation in depth will its full extent be revealed. Following are two examples which I observed where the lawyer’s voir dire developed bias which would not have been disclosed from the trial judge’s examination alone. These are just two examples among hundreds.
In a suit for personal injuries against a railroad, the judge’s questioning revealed that one of the potential juror’s husband had been injured in an accident involving another railroad. Without exploring the circumstances of the case, the judge then asked if that fact would in any way influence her in sitting on the case. She responded that it would not. Upon counsel's examination, however, it was further revealed that the juror’s husband had settled his lawsuit with the railroad out of court, and that the juror felt the settlement was unfair because the railroad had better lawyers. The juror stated that she was, in fact, resentful towards the railroad and that it might affect her judgment in the present case. The juror was excused for cause.
In a suit for personal injuries against a truck line and its driver, following the court’s general examination, counsel for the injured plaintiff was allowed to conduct his voir dire. Only then was it disclosed that one of the veniremen had previously been employed for many years as a truck driver and had been involved in two separate accidents. Although the juror stated that in each instance he was not at fault, he did admit that he might tend to believe the truck driver’s version of the accident more than the plaintiffs because of his long experience in driving trucks and familiarity with other drivers, many of whom were friends. This juror was also excused for cause. See also Sand & Reiss, A Report on Seven Experiments Conducted by District Court Judges in the Second Circuit, 60 N.Y. U.L.Rev. 423, 433 (1985).