The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

In Minnesota, a civil jury trial usually consists of seven jurors. For a number of years, the seventh juror was an alternate. But, after enduring years of complaints from people who sat through the whole trial only to be told to go home before deliberation, it was decided that all jurors would deliberate. In longer trials, the court and the attorneys will increase the number to ensure that they don’t ever end up with less then six, in the cases where a juror can’t last though the trial.

The process for selecting the jury is calling four more jurors than are necessary from the jury pool. The judge, followed by the defense attorney and finally the plaintiff’s attorney will then question the panel. Not to embarrass them , but to see if there is anyone with an obvious bias to the case itself or the overall issues involved. If a person is found to have a bias the judge may dismiss them for cause. A new person is then called from the pool.

After all of the questions, the two sides , starting with the defendant, alternately each strike two jurors. I make this choice by asking my client who they want to strike, getting advice from members of my staff who are watching the trial , and finally relying upon my own gut.

I have had a number of jurors dismissed through the initial questions. It often seems that the jurors know the case isn’t the right one for them and that they really don’t belong on that particular panel. I’m thankful for the jurors who answer the questions in a straightforward manner. It is much better than hearing after the trial that one of the jurors knew a party, was involved in the case issues, or was on the jury with a particular agenda. Occasionally, you will hear one of those jurors calling Rush with the news that they were able to get on and screw a plaintiff. I guess that juror missed the point when they swore to tell the truth and follow the law.

The present system relies heavily upon the information that is gained through the questioning that is done. If peremptory challenges were eliminated or reduced, it would make those questions even more important. Before the questions, we get basic information including name, age, city of residence, job, number of children and spousal information. With out the chance to ask the necessary questions, all we would be doing is making random prejudicial guess about people.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest