Jurors Who Lie on Voir Dire
The Maryland Litigator, January 2013, pp. 6, 14-15.
5 Pages Posted: 26 Sep 2014
Date Written: January 2013
Abstract
You have spent several hours selecting a jury in a civil case. In accordance with the usual Maryland procedure, the jurors were sworn and the trial judge conducted the voir dire, permitting counsel to ask only a few follow-up questions. One question the court asked the potential jurors is whether they ever have been a plaintiff or defendant in a civil or criminal case. Some answer affirmatively and are questioned at the bench. Others remain silent. A jury is selected.
Overnight, you discover that three of the jurors have failed to disclose their prior involvement in litigation. The next morning, you bring this to the attention of the court. Further voir dire is conducted and each of the jurors, after some prodding, admits their litigation histories. One says he didn’t hear the question. One says she thought that since her litigation had been resolved several years ago, there was no need to disclose it. The third provides no excuse. You have already used your peremptory challenges. Accordingly, you now challenge the three jurors for cause. You tell the judge that because neither opening statements nor any evidence have yet been presented, now is the time to replace these jurors.
Keywords: Maryland, voir dire, court rules, court procedure, legal counsel, attorneys. lawyers, failure to disclose, potential jurors, juries, peremptory challenges
JEL Classification: K19, K39, K41, K49
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation