Effective jury selection depends on disciplined psychological questioning, not charm or instinct. The right voir dire follow-up questions reveal emotional drivers, such as distrust, resentment, and cynicism, that predict how jurors will decide. Do not be afraid of uncovering negative emotions; identifying these perspectives is critical.
Finding jurors who have strong, unfavorable opinions creates valuable opportunities to identify others who share those views. Help jurors strike themselves more easily by asking, “Who else feels the same way?” Understanding the distinction between beliefs and attitudes, and structuring voir dire to uncover them, helps defense counsel identify and remove high-risk jurors before opening statements.
What questions reveal risky jurors in voir dire?
The questions that reveal risky jurors in voir dire are those that go past surface beliefs to uncover emotional attitudes, specifically how jurors feel about an issue after stating what they think. Asking follow-up questions like “How do you feel about that?” exposes underlying distrust, resentment, or cynicism that predict anti-defense or pro-plaintiff bias.
Voir Dire Follow-Up Questions and Why They Matter
The purpose of voir dire follow-up questions is to reveal the emotional attitudes that lie underneath the jurors’ professed convictions. Beliefs are cognitive, and attitudes are emotional – it’s those emotions that guide juror decision-making.
Two people may both agree that “corporations put profit first,” yet one views it as normal business practice while the other sees it as proof of greed and distrust. The second juror is a real risk because they are led by emotion.
How Do You Separate Beliefs from Attitudes in Voir Dire?
The key is sequencing. Start with a belief question, then immediately use a follow-up question to determine attitude.
Lead with, “Do you think…” or “Do you believe…” to establish the belief baseline.
Then follow with, “How do you feel about that?” or “What emotions come up when you hear that?” to uncover the emotional layer.
For example, if a juror agrees that corporations prioritize profit, a juror who feels it’s “just capitalism” can be acceptable to the defense. However, a juror who feels “that’s why I don’t trust corporations” is emotionally driven and therefore a higher risk to the defense.
Aim to expose who is merely opinionated versus who is emotionally driven – a critical technique for defense teams managing juror bias.
How Defense-Friendly-Sounding Beliefs Might Mislead Attorneys
Many defense attorneys assume that jurors who believe in personal responsibility are favorable. But belief without emotional context is deceptive.
A juror may say, “Yes, I believe in personal responsibility,” but if they feel offended when the defense raises it as a theme of the case, that emotional conflict can surface during deliberations.
You can test this in voir dire by following up with, “If the defense argues that the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to the event, how does that make you feel? Is that fair, or does that bother you?”
This emotional probe distinguishes those who support the principle intellectually from those who emotionally reject its use in the courtroom.
Why Do Experiences Matter Less Than Emotions?
Juror experiences, such as unpleasant hospital stays, poor treatment, or a previous frightful encounter with a big truck, are frequently overvalued by attorneys. Whether or not the emotion associated with such events endures is what counts.
“How do you feel about hospitals today?” or “Did that frustration fade over time, or does it still bother you?” are better follow-up questions than a closed-ended question like, “Have you ever had a bad experience with a doctor?”
Compared to jurors whose emotions have subsided, those who remain emotionally reactive, still uncomfortable, or suspicious pose a higher risk.
Normalize Negative Attitudes Without Losing Control
Defense counsel often avoid leaning into negative emotions out of fear of “tainting the panel.” However, acknowledging negativity can create transparency. When a juror reveals a negative emotion, thank them and use it as an opportunity to identify jurors with similar negative perspectives. “Thank you, Juror Five, I appreciate your honesty. Who else here feels the same way?”
This method normalizes negative views, encourages disclosure from others, and efficiently identifies clusters of high-risk jurors.
Nonverbal Cues Support Voir Dire Follow-Up Questions
Before speaking, jurors frequently express their attitudes through their body language. When talking about case issues such as damages or corporate behavior, keep an eye out for changes in posture or tone.
Then use a calm, open-ended question to translate that nonverbal response into words: “I noticed a reaction when we talked about corporate profit. What emotion did that bring up for you?”
Strategic Voir Dire Questioning to Strengthen Your Defense
Voir dire follow-up questions help distinguish between emotions and thoughts to reveal jurors’ bias. Defense attorneys should start by asking questions about beliefs and then go on to assess feelings. Keep the tone calm and inquisitive, not combative, and treat negativity as a successful identification of potential risk.
Strengthen Your Voir Dire Strategy with Courtroom Sciences
When executed well, this method yields the clearest possible map of the emotional obstacles you’ll face at trial, and the confidence that the jurors left in the box are those least likely to turn emotion against the defense.
Courtroom Sciences helps attorneys efficiently navigate litigation by providing psychological expertise, science-backed data, and expert support for all phases of litigation. Learn how litigation consulting experts can improve outcomes for your next case.
Speak with one of our experts to get started.
By Courtroom Sciences, based on insights from the Litigation Psychology Podcast, Episode #274 – Strategies to Identify Beliefs and Attitudes in Voir Dire
Be confident in achieving superior litigation outcomes. CSI has the expertise, track record, and capabilities to help you win.
