The general rule is that errors made by jurors when they are responding to voir dire questions are not grounds for overturning a conviction where the jurors errors in answering are honest and/or mistaken. The Constitution guarantees both criminal and civil litigants a right to an impartial jury and voir dire questioning is an essential method of protecting this right. One main purpose of voir dire questioning is to examine the potential jurors for bias that will allow jurors to be excluded.
If a potential juror lies when answering voir dire questions, usually, that is grounds for a new trial. Generally, if there are solid facts showing that a potential juror lied, then the trial court must have a hearing on the matter. If dishonesty is shown and the issue is material and might have affected the outcome of the case, then a new trial is generally required.
But what if the juror did not lie, but answered in error? Under those circumstances, there is no assumption that a new trial is required. A leading Supreme Court case is McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 US 548 (Supreme Court 1984). Although McDonough involved a products liability case, the decision is equally applicable to criminal cases. In McDonough, one voir dire question asked to prospective jurors was this:
“Now, how many of you have yourself or any members of your immediate family sustained any severe injury, not necessarily as severe as Billy, but sustained any injuries whether it was an accident at home, or on the farm or at work that resulted in any disability or prolonged pain and suffering, that is you or any members of your immediate family?”
One juror, who eventually became a juror in the case, did not respond to this question, which was addressed to all the potential jurors as a whole. However, it turned out that the juror’s son had been injured in the explosion of a truck tire. The losing party in the litigation asked for a new trial based on the fact that the jury was potentially not impartial.
When the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the court essentially held that an error in answering voir dire questions is only an error that requires a new trial if the juror error was based on dishonesty. The court noted that potential jurors are not necessarily experts in English usage and “… many may be uncertain as to the meaning of terms which are relatively easily understood by lawyers and judges.” The court noted that a different juror had answered by relating the fact that his 6-year-old son had once caught his finger in a bike chain. But, another juror did not offer that her husband had been injured in a machinery accident until prompted by a subsequent question. The point is that jurors can have honest differences in what is a proper answer to voir dire questions. For this reason, errors by potential jurors in answering voir dire questions are not automatic grounds for a new trial. There must be some evidence of lying or dishonesty. Proof of that is a large indicator that the juror was biased and, as such, the outcome of the case was prejudiced.
Speak With a Criminal Defense and Post-Conviction Appeal Team Today
For more information, contact the criminal defense and post-conviction appeal team at the Federal Criminal Law Center. Our firm knows how to fully assess an individual’s case and how to identify the strongest grounds for appeal. Contact us today by calling (404) 633.3797 or by completing our quick and convenient online form. Contact us today.
