Return to 2002 DP Start 
Return to Agenda for Conference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Page

 
14 particularly true where the individual juror either has no strong feelings about the matter or has a definite opinion but worries that the opinion is politically incorrect. To counter these attitudinal barriers to honest self-disclosure by potential jurors, some litigators advocate the use of the "everyday" analogue or the "life experience" example as an alternative to directly questioning venirepersons about the legal and factual issues in a case. The more abstract and theoretical voir dire questions are to the life experiences of the potential jurors the least effective those questions are in eliciting reliable, reality-based attitudes and opinions of the venirepersons. "[O]ral test questions tell you whether the applicant knows how he or she should handle the situation, but not whether she or he is likely to handle it that way." Tom Janz, Behavior Description Interviewing (1986), p. 40; (emphasis in original). When the juror's mental and emotional context for an answer is a memory of how the juror had performed in a similar or comparable everyday experience, there is a much greater chance that the answer will accurately predict the individual's attitudes, opinions and actions. "It's better to look for similar behavior in past similar circumstances - how the person handled it the last time." Id. Scientific validation of this technique is found in the principles of behavior description interviewing, which "improves on traditional approaches by systematically probing what applicants have done in the past in situations similar to those they will face on the job." Tom Janz, Behavior Description Interviewing (1986), p. ix. "The concept that the best predictor of behavior in the future is behavior in the past is what this" interviewing technique "is all about." Id. at pp. ix-x. To apply the "everyday analogue" or "life experience" example, the questioner takes a