The Impact of Minimal versus Extended Voir Dire and Judicial Rehabilitation on Mock Jurors' Decisions in Civil Cases

Abstract

Purpose: Three experiments tested the utility of minimal and extended voir dire questions in edicting mock jurors’ verdicts and damage awards in civil cases, and whether the biasing impact of mock jurors’ preexisting attitudes on case judgments could be reduced or eliminated if they undergo voir dire or judicial rehabilitation before judging the case. Method: In three experiments, each focusing on a different case, online participants (total N = 2,041) were randomly assigned to experience (a) no voir dire, minimal voir dire focusing on 20 previous legal experience and self-identification of biases, or extended voir dire focusing on specific attitudes about civil litigation, parties, and laws, before judging the case and (b) judicial rehabilitation in which a judge asks them if they can set their biases aside and judge the case impartially or not. Participants reviewed a civil case, made case judgments, and completed bias awareness measures. Results: With the exception of widow status, demographic information and minimal voir dire questions did not predict case judgments, but many extended voir dire responses significantly 37 predicted both verdicts and damage awards. Neither responding to voir dire questions before (versus after) judging the case, nor experiencing judicial rehabilitation, reduced the biasing impact of mock jurors’ preexisting attitudes on their case judgments. Further, judicial rehabilitation led jurors to report that they were less biased in their judgments than those who did not experience rehabilitation—despite not actually reducing their bias. Discussion: Attorneys need the opportunity during voir dire to ask jurors about specific attitudes that might bias their decisions because relying on jurors’ self-identification of their own biases 54 has little utility. Further, neither calling awareness to these potential biases during voir dire, nor trying to motivate jurors to control their biases via judicial rehabilitation reduced the impact of mock jurors’ reexisting attitudes on their judgments. Keywords: bias, civil jury, jury decision making, jury instructions, jury selection, voir dire Public interest statement: Voir dire is much more effective in predicting verdicts and damage awards in civil cases when the questions assess specific attitudes toward civil litigation and 15 parties compared to a more minimal voir dire that relies on jurors reporting demographic characteristics or self-identifying their own biases in response to general, open-ended questions. Neither drawing participants’ awareness to their own biases during voir dire nor undergoing judicial rehabilitation reduced the impact of their preexisting biases on their decisions—although judicial rehabilitation made them think they were less biased.