Voir Dire- Jury Selection

The process by which a jury is selected is referred to as Voir Dire, which is derived from Anglo-Saxon term, itself derived from Latin for Verum Dicere -- Tell the Truth (at least, according to the fount of all questionable knowledge, Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire).  This process is used for any expert witnesses as well, to determine their suitability in that capacity.  

In the state of Ohio, the number of jurors is not always 12, but is often less for civil or special courts, while a Grand Jury has 15 (per ORC 2939.02 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2939.02).  No more than 4 alternate jurors may sit in a jury, and the alternates sit in a jury in case a juror is unable to fulfill their obligation.  As I understand cases from talking with peers who have been through the process, this typically means that there are 16 jurors sitting through the trial, and then the official 12 provide the verdict.  

Voir Dire as a process seems to have two very important parts - determining the impartiality and swearing of the juror to fulfill their obligation truthfully and without bias.  In the State of Ohio, the commissioner of jurors pulls board of elections and BMV registrations to call jurors.  Once called, voir dire is really one of deselection of jurors, for 1 of 3 reasons:

1. for cause (e.g. condition which would prejudice them, such as knowing the plaintiff or defendent), 
2. a peremptory challenge of up to three jurors, for which counsel need not show cause (although is not without limit), and
3. the court may provide, at their discretion, for a challenge of the suitability of our juror outside the voir dire process.  For example, if testimony later given in the case should show that there was an undisclosed relationship or prejudice of a juror, then the court would almost certainly entertain a motion by either counsel to disqualify that juror. 

(Ohio Jury Selection, US Legal.com http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/trial/jury-selection/ohio-jury-selection/).  [NLRG]

There are some limits to peremptory challenges, which vary based on local laws.  Peremptory exclusion has undergone increasing scrutiny since Batson v. Kentucky, 106 S. Ct 1712 (1986), and further in State vs. McCollum, 112 S. Ct 2348 (1992), which precluded the basis of race, when an African-American juror was excluded peremptorially.  This protection was extended to civil trials in Edmonson vs. Leesville Concrete Co., 111 S. Ct 2077 (1991) and to ethnicity - Latinos in Hernandez v. State of New York, 500 US 352 (1991) and Hispanics in Allen v. Hardy, 478 US 255, 259 (1986).  

Some courts have also provided for the extension as well to preclude discrimination against Caucasians (Brown v. Neurodiagnostic Associates, PC, District of Columbia Superior Court No.990-CA-4171 (1992)).  Gender has also been included in a SCOTUS ruling, J.E.B. v. Aalabama ex rel. TB, 62 U.S.L.W. 4219 (US 1994), and provided that the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution prohibits that the exclusion of a juror via peremptory challenge be based on a discriminatory use based on the gender of jurors.  In California, a peremptory challenge of a juror would not be permitted on the basis of sexual orientation. [NLRG]

Once a peremptory challenge has been issued by either counsel, the opposing counsel can raise an objection to establish the prima facie case of intention of the peremptory exclusion to discriminate.  In practice, this forces the counsel who wishes to exlude a juror peremptorially to explain the reason for the peremptory challenge in a way that demonstrates that it is non-discriminatory.  However, in practice, I believe that you can likely find nearly any excuse as long as it's not stated to be based on discriminatory reasons, even if that is the precise intent.  I know that age, gender, ethnic and sexual orientation discrimination are regrettably common in hiring practices, but that you can always find a reason to exclude a potential candidate on some other basis.  

Despite some latitude, grounds for peremptory challenge exclusion must be articulated, not some vague reference - as in People v. Mack, 128 Ill. 2d 231, 538 N.E.2nd 1107 (1989) / Wright v. State, 586 So. 2nd 1024 (Fla. 1991), cannot be the lack of eye contact or a "bad feeling".  Further, courts have provided for oversight of the treatment of jurors, such as discriminatory ways in which jurors are questioned or otherwise interacted with during voir dire, such as striking a black bricklayer, but not a white bricklayer - see Brown v. Neurologic Associates, PC, supra. [NLRG]

I would think that life experiences similar to the case at hand would cause most of the peremptory challenges.  For example, if the case is one of alleged police brutality, then questions focus on if the juror had ever been arrested or in handcuffs by police, had ever felt threatened by a police officer, or if they had ever been accused of resisting arrest or an act of violence.  

Counsel would also want to know about the opinions that the juror has about the police, such as if they had neighbors, friends or relatives who are or were police officers, or if the juror had ever participated in a police-associated charity, such as a Back the Badge Poker Run.  Additionally, I think that age would be desired by the prosecution, as it might keep them from being swayed by an impassioned plea based on emotional appeal.  I have been told that, because I am in Information Security and am an architect and analyst, that I would ALWAYS be excused based on peremptory challenge, because I use judgement in my profession.  I think that is sadly humorous.

___
NLRG: National Legal Research Group, (Pub Date unknown). "Jury Research Update: Exercising Peremptory Challenges in Light of J.E.B." NLRG.COM, retrieved 3/28/2013 fromhttp://www.nlrg.com/our-services/jury-research-division/jury-research-publications/-exercising-peremptory-challenges-in-light-of-jeb/