One key to empanelling an impartial jury for a courtroom trial is the process of voir dire in which the judge, the attorneys, or both, question potential jurors about their background, history, and beliefs in order to determine whether they are qualified to serve. To identify biased prospective jurors, attorneys and judges must elicit adequate and accurate responses to questions. Social science research has shown that jurors do not provide such responses and resist admitting to bias. An apparent reason for voir dire's shortcomings is the kind and quality of questions asked by attorneys and judges. This research will assess the adequacy of typical questioning during voir dire in terms of social science standards of questioning and interviewing, and then examine the relationship between the adequacy of the questioning and the identification of juror bias. The theoretical and methodological significance of this research is that it will provide systematic knowledge about voir dire questioning and demonstrate a method for the evaluation of that procedure. The broader significance is that the research should identify potential improvements in the effectiveness of voir dire for empanelling an impartial jury as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
