COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF 
| Chapter 19: Jury Selection |
19-1 Overview of Jury Selection
Your client has no right to have the court ask questions submitted by his or her counsel during voir dire. People v Sawyer, 215 Mich App 183 (1996). Your client also has no right to have his or her attorney conduct voir dire, or to individual sequestered voir dire. Id. Your client only has a right to a jury whose fairness and impartiality are assured by the procedures within the discretion of the court. Id. The equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment impose a duty on the trial court to question, or permit counsel to question, jurors on the subject of racial prejudice upon request. Ham v South Carolina, 409 US 524; 93 SCt 848; 35 LEd2d 46 (1973). The trial court's refusal to ask questions submitted by counsel is not necessarily an abuse of discretion. People v Harrell, 398 Mich 384 (1976) [refusal to submit defendant's questions that were about discovering racial prejudice was not an abuse of discretion because trial judge's voir dire contained questions regarding racial prejudice which were sufficient to afford defense counsel necessary information for peremptory challenges and challenges for cause]; People v Wray, 49 Mich App 344 (1973); People v Tyburski, 445 Mich 606 (1994) [voir dire was deficient because trial court asked superficial, leading, and conclusory questions that provided no insight into prejudices or biases that prospective jurors may have had from media exposure in a highly publicized case]. This does not mean you should simply accede to a ruling that your questions will not be used. You should request everything you want in writing and as jury selection continues (if your requests are denied), you should make a record as to why the voir dire you are getting is not adequate.
MCR 2.511(D) provides the grounds for challenges to jurors for cause. A juror is presumed to be competent and impartial. People v Walker, 162 Mich App 60 (1987). The challenging party must show that the juror is biased, that he or she has a preconceived opinion as to the defendant's guilt which he/she cannot set aside, People v Harvey, 167 Mich App 734 (1988), or that the juror has exhibited "such reckless disregard of his duty" as to make him/her unfit to serve. People v Barker, 60 Mich 277 (1886). See People v Lamar, 153 Mich App 127 (1986) [denial of challenge upheld where jurors stated their belief that because a person has been arrested a crime had been committed, but stated they could follow the court's instructions on burden of proof and reasonable doubt]; People v Robinson, 154 Mich App 92 (1986) [victims of similar crimes who stated their ability to be impartial were not challengeable for cause].
Any opinion that requires removal by evidence is sufficiently positive to disqualify that person as a juror. People v Shufelt, 61 Mich 237 (1886). For examples of jurors challengeable for cause, see People v Skinner, 153 Mich App 815 (1986) [juror said eight times he could not be fair to defendant]; People v Roupe, 150 Mich App 469 (1986) [juror indicated that he didn't care for colored people and might not believe the testimony of a black woman who was dating a black man]; People v Walker, 162 Mich App 60 (1987) [juror was a police officer who had a close relationship with the prosecutor and police witnesses].
A defendant is denied the right to an impartial jury when a juror removable for cause is allowed to serve on the jury. People v Daoust, 228 Mich App 1 (1998).
Non-life offenses: five for each defendant.
Life offenses: 12 for defendant tried alone, 10 for each of 2 jointly tried, 9 for each of 3 jointly tried, 8 for each of 4 jointly tried, 7 for each of 5 or more.
There is no constitutional right to peremptory challenges; the right is granted by statute and exists only until the jury is sworn. People v Daoust, 228 Mich App 1 (1998). However, the trial court's failure to remove a peremptorily challenged juror is reversible error under MCL 768.12; MSA 28.1035. People v Juarez, 158 Mich App 66 (1987). The defendant must be allowed to peremptorily challenge a juror he/she had previously passed if the composition of the panel is changed. MCR 2.511; People v Schmitz, 231 Mich App 521 (1998).
The Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor and defense counsel from challenging prospective jurors solely on the basis of race or on the assumption that members of the defendant's race will be unable to be impartial jurors. Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; 106 SCt 1712 (1986); Georgia v McCollum, 505 US 42; 112 SCt 2348; 120 LEd2d 33 (1992). The defendant must make a prima facie case of discriminatory selection by showing: 1) that he/she is a member of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has used peremptory challenges to excuse members of defendant's race, and 2) that the circumstances raise an inference of purposeful discrimination. Once the defendant has made a prima facie showing, the burden is on the prosecution to provide a racially neutral explanation. Batson, supra. Examples of "racially neutral" reasons include: similarity in age and economic status to accused, People v Barker, 179 Mich App 702 (1990), aff'd on other grds, 437 Mich 161 (1991); juror was a renter in case involving dispute about overdue house payments; juror was "defensive" and had an uncle previously tried for murder; juror was a circuit court probation officer, People v Howard, 226 Mich App 528 (1998); juror was an attorney; juror had experienced similar discrimination, Harville v State Plumbing and Heating, Inc., 218 Mich App 302 (1996).
A white defendant has standing to challenge the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective black jurors. Powers v Ohio, 499 US 400; 111 SCt 1364; 113 LEd2d 411 (1991). Peremptory challenges based on the gender of prospective jurors also violate the Equal Protection Clause. J.E.B. v Alabama ex rel T.B., 511 US 127; 114 SCt 127; 114 SCt 1419; 128 LEd2d 89 (1994).
Racially-motivated use of peremptory challenges also denies the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Booker v Jabe, 775 F2d 762 (CA6, 1985), vacated and remanded 478 US 1001; 106 SCt 3289; 92 LEd2d 705, on remand 801 F2d 871 (1986), cert den 479 US 1046, 107 SCt 910; 93 LEd2d 860 (1987).
19.1 Motion for Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire [Download: WP | Word | PDF]
COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
____________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs No. 
Hon. 
,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
The Defendant, 
, by 
attorney, moves this Court to grant 
request for
attorney participation in voir dire of prospective jurors. This motion is based on Michigan Court Rules 2.511 and 6.412
and the following reasons:
1. The trial court has the discretion to allow attorney-conducted voir dire.
2. The parties in a case are best able to determine what jurors may be subject to a challenge for cause, based on their knowledge of the case.
3. Because jurors are concerned with giving judges the "right" answer, they feel more comfortable answering questions put to them by counsel, than those put to them by judges. See e.g., Cathy Bennett et al., How to Conduct a Meaningful and Effective Voir Dire in Criminal Cases, 46 SMU L Rev 659 (1992).
4. An examination of the prospective jurors by 
counsel will enable counsel to frame
questions based on responses to prior questions and to observe the jurors' reactions to these questions.
Through such questions, answers and observations, defense counsel can determine whether actual bias exists
in the minds of the prospective jurors and exercise both challenges for cause and peremptory challenges in a
rational and informed fashion. People v Tyburski, 445 Mich 606 (1994) [courts should sparingly exclude
parties' counsel from voir dire to allow meaningful decisions to be made regarding peremptory challenges and
challenges for cause].
5. A defendant is denied the right to an impartial jury when a juror removable for cause is allowed to serve on the jury. People v Daoust, 228 Mich App 1 (1998).
In order to exercise intelligently 
peremptory challenges, as well as have the ability to develop
adequately any challenges for cause, and in order to give 
constitutionally mandated
rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel, 
requests that this Court grant this
motion.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________
Attorney for Defendant
19.2 Motion for Individual Sequestered Voir Dire [Download: WP | Word | PDF]
COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF 
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs No. 
Hon. 
Defendant.
/
The Defendant, 
, by 
attorney, moves this Court to grant 
request,
pursuant to Article I, Sections 14 and 17 of the Michigan Constitution, as well as the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution, to conduct individual voir dire of venire members on selected topics in a sequestered,
private setting. This motion is based on the following:
As counsel understands the procedure the Court is contemplating, all voir dire will take place in the presence of other jurors. At least as to certain sensitive topics which are a part of this trial,
such a procedure would neither
be prudent, nor would it save time.
2. Questions will certainly be asked in an attempt to uncover any prejudice venire members may feel regarding
Questioning of single jurors on any of these and other sensitive topics, before the entire panel, poses the danger of contamination of all jurors.
3. An important consideration for the Court is always the time necessary to accomplish any jury selection procedure. Since individual questions are permitted, it matters little in terms of efficiency whether the juror being questioned is alone or in a group of other jurors.
4. During the voir dire, it will be essential to determine whether each prospective juror has been exposed to the extensive pretrial publicity. It will be very difficult to adequately question jurors individually about their knowledge of the case without revealing, or having them reveal, prejudicial information. Defendant submits that to question jurors as a group about their knowledge of the case creates a substantial danger of infecting the entire panel with prejudicial information. The existence of extensive pretrial publicity has often been recognized as a factor compelling individual examination of prospective jurors. United States v Dellinger, 472 F2d 340 (CA7, 1972); People v Tyburski, 445 Mich 606 (1994).
5. In the interest of a fair and impartial trial and due process of law, as guaranteed by both the Michigan and United States Constitutions, it is necessary that a searching inquiry be made of the prospective jurors to uncover any and all bias and prejudice which may exist. Such an inquiry should be unfettered by natural human reluctance to admit before fellow jurors that one would be influenced in his verdict by socially unacceptable feelings or viewpoints.
6. Social science teaches us that individual, sequestered voir dire permits the parties to better educate the trial court on any need to exclude for cause biased venire members. Michael T. Nietzel & Ronald C. Dillehay, "The Effects of Variations in Voir Dire Procedures in Capital Murder Trials," 6 Law & Hum. Behav. 1 (1982); Michael T. Nietzel, Ronald C. Dillehay & Melissa J. Himelein, "Effects of Voir Dire Variations in Capital Trials: A Replication and Extension," 5 Behav. Sci. & L. 467 (1987). A second benefit is the avoidance of prejudice to other jurors. Craig Haney, "On the Selection of Capital Juries The Biasing Effects of the Death Qualification Process," 8 Law & Hum. Behav. 121 (1984); Craig Haney, "Examining Death Qualification Further Analysis of the Process Effect," 8 Law & Hum. Behav. 133 (1984).
7. The trial court has wide discretion in the conduct of voir dire examination. MCR 6.412. In this case, there is a possibility that individual jurors will be ineligible to serve because of
8. Counsel requests and prefers the interrogation of prospective jurors about these issues privately, outside the presence of other prospective jurors. People v Tyburski, 445 Mich 606, 624 (1994) [where there is extensive pre-trial publicity, additional cautionary measures should be employed; sequestered voir dire was suggested as an effective method in securing an impartial jury by allowing probing questions and detailed answers without the risk of tainting the other jurors]; Turner v Murray, 476 US 28, 37; 106 SCt 1683; 90 LEd2d 27 (1986) (plurality) [suggesting that 'special circumstances' require a more thorough and searching inquiry into the impartiality of veniremen, to be constitutionally adequate]; United States v Hawkins, 658 F2d 279, 283-84 (CA5, 1981) [individual, sequestered voir dire involving pretrial publicity should have been conducted]; United States v Davis, 582 F2d 190, 196-97 (CA5, 1978) [individual, sequestered voir dire involving pretrial publicity should have been conducted]; ABA Standards For Criminal Justice § 8-3, 5(a) (2d ed. 1980) [urging individual voir dire, outside presence of other jurors].
9. Finally, since the nature of the questions necessary in this case are so personal, sequestered questioning will permit this Court to protect, to some extent, the privacy of the prospective jurors, who might admit socially unacceptable or unpopular opinions.
For these reasons, Defendant requests that this Court permit private and individual sequestered questioning of venire members on certain topics.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________
Attorney for Defendant
19.3 Motion for Juror Questionnaire [Download: WP | Word | PDF]
COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF 
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs No. 
Hon. 
,
Defendant.
The Defendant, 
, by 
attorney, moves this Court to grant 
request to
allow a juror questionnaire in this case. This motion is based on the following:
1. The purpose of voir dire is to enable the parties and the court to discover grounds for challenges for cause and
to gain knowledge to facilitate an intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges.
2. 
is aware of this Court's concerns for balancing its need to gain knowledge with time
constraints.
3. Counsel for 
will copy and mail out this questionnaire (attached as Exhibit A) to the
number of jurors this Court deems appropriate, based on the jury commissioner's list, well in advance of trial.
4. Counsel will mail a self-addressed stamped envelope along with this questionnaire, which can either be returnable to this Court or to counsel's offices. Counsel will provide copies for the Court and the prosecution in advance of jury selection.
5. Using a jury questionnaire will ultimately save time for all parties; the parties will know what, if any, follow-up
questions are needed based upon the jurors' written responses; the parties will be aware of any issues which
might require them to speak privately with the juror regarding
; and the parties may also be able to discern, ahead
of jury selection, potential jurors who must be excused for cause.
For these reasons 
requests that this Court grant 
motion to allow a jury
questionnaire in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________
Attorney for Defendant
19.4 Juror Questionnaire [Download: WP | Word | PDF]
COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF 
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs No. 
Hon. 
,
Defendant.
/
JUROR NO._____________
JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS:
Your answers to the following questions are very important to the trial of this case, and are designed to shorten the jury selection process. Do not discuss any of these questions or your answers with anyone else, including any other prospective jurors. Please take as much time as is reasonably necessary to answer each question as completely and as honestly as possible. Please do not accept the assistance or the advice of anyone in answering these questions. If any questions should arise while completing this questionnaire, please contact the presiding judge. Do not speak to anyone else about the questionnaire or any questions you might have.
YOUR ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE BEING GIVEN UNDER OATH
The answers to these questions will be used by the Court and the attorneys solely for the selection of the jury in this case and for no other reason. The confidentiality of your answers to these questions will be maintained by the Court.
PLEASE PRINT YOUR ANSWERS
PERSONAL
1. NAME:
(first) (middle) (last) (maiden, if applicable)
DATE OF BIRTH: AGE: SEX:
RACE:
BIRTHPLACE: SSN:
2. ADDRESS:
(number and street) (city / town) (zip)
3. LENGTH OF TIME AT PRESENT ADDRESS:
4. FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS, WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE YOU LIVED IN AND FOR HOW LONG DID YOU LIVE IN EACH CITY?
EMPLOYMENT
5. PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT:
6. JOB TITLE OR DESCRIPTION:
BUSINESS HOURS:
LENGTH OF PRESENT EMPLOYMENT:
SUPERVISOR:
7. PLEASE LIST YOUR OCCUPATION OR EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PAST TEN (10) YEARS:
8. WHAT OTHER TYPES OF JOBS HAVE YOU HELD?
If you could change your profession, what would you change it to?
FAMILY
9. MARITAL STATUS: (Please circle appropriate answer(s).)
a) Married b). Single c). Separated
d). Divorced e). Spouse Deceased
f). Previously Divorced (how many times ____ g). Living With Someone
10. NAME OF SPOUSE
(first) (middle) (last) (maiden, if applicable)
11. SPOUSE'S EMPLOYER:
Job Title or Description:
Length of Present Employment:
What Other Types of Jobs Has Your Spouse Held?
12. PLEASE INDICATE THE APPROXIMATE TOTAL ANNUAL GROSS INCOME OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD:
Under $10,000
$10,000 to $30,000
$30,000 to $50,000
$50,000 to $70,000
$70,000 to $100,000
Over $100,000
13. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN AND STEPCHILDREN, IF ANY:
Name Sex Age School or Occupation
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
14. IF YOU HAVE GRANDCHILDREN, HOW MANY?
15. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR PARENTS AND YOUR STEPPARENTS, IF ANY:
Name Age City of Residence Retired Occupation/Employment
(before retirement, if applicable)
Father:
Mother:
Stepfather:
Stepmother:
Were Your Parents Ever Divorced? (Y) (N) Please circle one.
16. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IF ANY.
Name Sex Age School or Occupation
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
EDUCATION
17. PLEASE GIVE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND. PLEASE INCLUDE HOW FAR YOU WENT IN SCHOOL; THE NAMES OF ANY TECHNICAL OR TRADE SCHOOLS ATTENDED; ANY COLLEGE AND GRADUATE SCHOOLS YOU HAVE ATTENDED, TOGETHER WITH MAJOR SUBJECT AND DEGREES RECEIVED, IF ANY:
18. PLEASE GIVE YOUR SPOUSE'S EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
19. ARE YOU OR YOUR SPOUSE PRESENTLY ENROLLED AS A STUDENT? IF SO, PLEASE GIVE DETAILS.
MILITARY
20. HAVE YOU EVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If so, please give the following information:
Branch , Years of Service
Enlist? , Re-enlist?
Highest Grade or Rank Attained
Duties:
Did you serve in combat? Year Discharged?
Type of Discharge: Did you participate in any Courts-Martial? (N) Please circle one. If yes, please explain:
Did you ever serve in the military police? (Y) (N) Please circle one.
21. HAS YOUR SPOUSE EVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If so, please give the following information:
Branch , Years of Service,
Enlist? Re-enlist?
Highest Grade or Rank Attained
Duties
Did he/she serve in combat? Year Discharged?
Type of Discharge:
he/she participate in any Courts-Martial? (Y) (N) (please circle one)
If yes, please explain:
Did he/she ever serve in the military police?
22. [UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU THINK A PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE?] Please explain your answer.
23. [UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU THINK A PERSON ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE HAS THE RIGHT TO USE DEADLY FORCE?] Please explain your answer.
24. [WHAT ROLE, IF ANY, SHOULD THE PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PEOPLE INVOLVED PLAY?] PLEASE EXPLAIN.
25. [YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THE PHRASE "BATTERED WOMAN" BEFORE. WHEN YOU HEAR THAT PHRASE, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF?] Please explain.
26. [SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IN ORDER FOR A WOMAN TO BE PHYSICALLY ABUSED BY HER HUSBAND, SHE MUST BE PHYSICALLY SMALL OR WEAK. Do you agree with this idea?] [Agree___ Disagree___] Please explain your answer.
27. [SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT DEFENSES LIKE THE BATTERED WOMAN DEFENSE ARE USED TOO OFTEN. WHAT DO YOU THINK?]
RELIGION
28. RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE (you may decline to answer any questions regarding religion if you prefer):
29. Name and Location of Church, Temple, Synagogue or Other Religious Organization with Which You are Affiliated, if any:
Have you studied for the ministry, priesthood, rabbinic order, or any other clergy position?
30. HOW OFTEN DO YOU ATTEND?
Past or present church offices held:
Have there been any recent changes in your religious activities? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If yes, please explain.
31. WERE YOU RAISED IN A RELIGION DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE YOU NOW PRACTICE?(Y) (N) Please circle one. If so, please explain.
32. DOES YOUR SPOUSE PRACTICE A RELIGION DIFFERENT FROM YOURS? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If so, please explain.
33. DO YOU CURRENTLY, OR HAVE YOU IN THE PAST, SUPPORTED, OR ROUTINELY WATCHED OR LISTENED TO ANY RADIO OR TELEVISION MINISTRY? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If so, please indicate which ministry.
34. DO YOU HAVE A PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY OR FAVORITE SAYING THAT REFLECTS YOUR PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY THAT CAN BE EXPRESSED IN A FEW SENTENCES OR LESS? Yes No
If yes, please state it.
POLITICAL
35. DO YOU HAVE A POLITICAL PREFERENCE?
Democrat Republican
Independent Other
Does your spouse have a different preference?
If so, please explain.
36. DO YOU IDENTIFY WITH OR SUPPORT A POLITICAL PARTY? Is so, which one?
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Other
Is your spouse a member or supporter of a different party?
If so, please explain.
37. HAVE YOU EVER SOUGHT OR HELD A POLITICAL OFFICE? Please specify.
PHYSICAL/MEDICAL
38. DO YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY IN READING OR WRITING?
If so, please explain.
39. DO YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY IN SIGHT OR HEARING, OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER DISABILITY OR DISEASE THAT WOULD MAKE JURY SERVICE A HARDSHIP FOR YOU?
If so, please explain.
40. ARE YOU CURRENTLY TAKING ANY MEDICATION THAT MIGHT INTERFERE WITH YOUR ABILITY TO SIT THROUGH THIS TRIAL? (Y) (N) Please circle one.
If so, please give the name of the medication and the reason you take it.
41. ARE YOU OR ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY CURRENTLY BEING TREATED FOR A MEDICAL ILLNESS WHICH WOULD PREVENT OR IMPAIR YOUR JURY SERVICE? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If so, please explain.
PERSONAL
42. WHAT ARE YOUR HOBBIES?
43. DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO AND/OR REGULARLY READ A NEWSPAPER? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If yes, which one(s):
44. WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE MOVIES?
45. WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE TELEVISION SHOWS, OR WHICH SHOWS DO YOU REGULARLY WATCH?
46. WHAT WAS THE LAST BOOK YOU READ?
47. WHAT IS YOUR LEAST FAVORITE TYPE OF READING MATERIAL?
48. HAVE YOU EVER READ A BOOK ABOUT A MURDER TRIAL? (Y) (N) Please circle one. Which book or trial?
49. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE RADIO STATION?
50. DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO OR REGULARLY READ ANY MAGAZINES? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If yes, which one(s)?
51. HAVE YOU EVER WRITTEN A LETTER TO THE EDITOR? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If so, about what subject?
52. DO YOU OR HAVE YOU DISPLAYED A BUMPER STICKER ON YOUR CAR? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If yes, what was the message:
53. LIST FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PUBLICLY KNOWN WHOM YOU MOST RESPECT:
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM/LAW ENFORCEMENT
54. HAVE YOU, YOUR SPOUSE, ANY FAMILY MEMBER, OR CLOSE FRIEND EVER BEEN ACCUSED, ARRESTED, INDICTED, CHARGED BY ANY MEANS, OR CONVICTED (including probation, deferred adjudication, conditional discharge, etc.) OF A CRIME OTHER THAN A TRAFFIC TICKET? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If yes, please give details.
55. HAVE YOU, YOUR SPOUSE, OR ANY FAMILY MEMBER EVER USED THE SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY FOR ANY REASON? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If yes, please give details and name of attorney:
56. DO YOU, YOUR SPOUSE, OR ANY FAMILY MEMBERS KNOW OR HAVE ANY FRIENDS WHO ARE ATTORNEYS? (Y) (N) Please circle one. If yes, please give attorneys' names and the types of practice they have:
57. DO YOU KNOW ANY ATTORNEY JOKES? If yes, please write down one of them.
58. WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF PROSECUTORS IN GENERAL?
59. WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN GENERAL?
DECLARATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information I have provided in this Juror Information Sheet is true
and correct. Executed on 
.
__________________________________
