Item

Abstract

Jury selection in the US involves voir dire, an examination process wherein prospective jurors are questioned about their potential for fairness or bias. Such inquiries are hampered by social desirability pressures inhibiting admissions of bias. Analogous pressures hamper survey interviews, but since voir dire examinations are unscripted their study can reveal how desirability pressures are addressed through naturally occurring variations in question design. This article combines sequential and distributional analyses of >100 transcribed question-answer sequences targeting juror fairness/bias, and documents various tendencies and preferences in question design. Court officials focus on bias rather than fairness by default, and the predominant bias-targeting questions are mitigated through: (i) indirect references to bias, (ii) diffusion of responsibility for bias, and (iii) projecting bias as minimal or unlikely. The findings shed light on the social dynamics of jury selection and, more broadly, how question design practices are adapted for inquiry into sensitive subjects. (Questions, law, voir dire, juries, social desirability bias, conversation analysis)