“After the designated number of prospective jurors (and alternates) is seated in the jury box, the trial judge begins the examination “[t]o select a fair and impartial jury…” [CCP § 222.5(a); CRC 3.1540(b)]. Initially, the judge’s explanations and questions are directed at the prospective jurors (and alternates) seated in the jury box. But all other members of the panel are admonished to listen carefully so that these matters will not have to be repeated if they are called as replacements.”
“Judicial Administration Standards: Most judges’ examination consists of the explanations and questions in CRC Standards of Jud. Admin., Standard 3.25(c): Explanation re questioning: The judge first explains that the judge is going to question those seated in the jury box concerning their qualifications to serve as jurors in the case; but all members of the jury panel should pay close attention because, if subsequently called to the jury box, they will be expected to answer the same questions. Parties’ right to fair and impartial jury: The court will state the parties are entitled to a fair trial and, if there is any reason why any juror might be biased or prejudiced, it is the juror’s duty to disclose this to the court. Challenges: The judge should also explain challenges for cause and peremptory challenges, and tell the jury that each side has a “limited number” of peremptory challenges. (This is preferable to telling them the exact number, which may cause them to keep count and perhaps draw inaccurate inferences.) Nature of the case: The court usually reads a brief statement of the case agreed upon by counsel at the in-chambers conference, including alleged injuries and damages. The court will tell the jurors such allegations are not evidence but simply the contentions of the parties. Expected length of trial: The court will estimate the expected length of the trial but caution that it may take longer; and inquire whether any juror would find it difficult or impossible to participate for this period of time. (Some judges rule immediately on any juror requests for excuse on the ground of “hardship.” Others defer ruling until after completing the initial explanations and questions) Introduce counsel and parties: The court should identify the attorneys, their law firms and the parties; and should inquire whether any of the jurors have ever been acquainted in any way with them. Identify witnesses: Without stating on which party’s behalf the witness will testify, the court should identify all witnesses who may be called at trial and ask if the jurors have heard of or are acquainted with any of them. (The court should also state the parties are not required to call all witnesses identified at this time.) Prior experience as juror or witness: The court will ask whether any juror has served as a juror or witness in any other matter involving any of the parties, attorneys or witnesses; and for jurors who have served as jurors before in a criminal case, explain the basic difference in burden of proof between criminal and civil actions (i.e., the “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal actions vs. “the preponderance of the evidence” standard in a civil case). Prior litigation experience: The judge will ask if any of the jurors or any family member, close friend, or anyone with whom you have a significant personal relationship ever: sued or presented a claim against anyone in connection with a matter similar to the present case (and if so, whether the matter terminated satisfactorily so far as the juror was concerned); was sued or had a claim presented by anyone against them in connection with a matter similar to the present case (and if so, whether the matter terminated satisfactorily so far as the juror was concerned). Some judges ask about any prior litigation experience (similar or not) on the rationale that jurors’ attitudes about courts, judges, lawyers, the law, etc. may be relevant to a challenge for cause. Disqualifying knowledge, interests or beliefs: The court will ask whether any juror has: knowledge of the facts, events, property or places involved in the case; “a problem” with the fact that a case like this has been brought to court for resolution; a financial interest in the outcome of the case; feelings or beliefs for or against any of the parties, attorneys or witnesses that may be regarded as a bias or prejudice. Where party, witness or attorney is member of cognizable group: If one or more parties, attorneys or witnesses comes from a particular national, racial or religious group, the court should ask whether this will affect the juror’s judgment or the weight or credibility the juror will give to their testimony. A trial judge committed reversible error during jury voir dire by instructing jurors to lie about their racial bias. [People v. Mello (2001) 97 CA4th 511, 516, 118 CR2d 523, 526-527; People v. Abbaszadeh (2003) 106 CA4th 642, 644, 130 CR2d 873, 874—reversible error regardless of lack of objection at trial] (CRC Standards of Jud. Admin., Standard 3.25(c)(16) provides an appropriate guideline for a trial judge’s inquiry concerning racial bias.) Where party is a corporation or entity: If one of the parties is a corporation or “company,” the court should inquire whether any juror or family member or close friend of the juror: has had dealings with the corporation or company that is a party to the suit; is related to any officer or director of such corporation or company; owns stock or any other interest therein; or has ever done business as a corporation or company. The court should also admonish the jurors that corporations are as entitled to a fair trial as natural persons; and thus the fact a corporation is a party to the case must not affect the jurors’ deliberations. The court should ask whether any juror has feelings for or against corporations that might affect the juror’s impartiality in this case. Where field of expertise involved: The court will ask whether any juror, family member or close friend has had special training in a field of expertise involved in the present case (law, medicine, nursing, etc.). In personal injury or wrongful death cases: Certain additional questions are usually asked by the court in personal injury or wrongful death cases. [See CRC Standards of Jud. Admin., Standard 3.25(c)(18)] In eminent domain cases: Likewise, additional preliminary questions will be asked by the court in eminent domain cases. [CRC Standards of Jud. Admin., Standard 3.25(d)]
[California Practice Guide Civil Trials & Evidence [certain citations omitted]]
