Voir Dire: How Jury Selection Works and the Questions Lawyers Ask

Last updated: 29 October 2026. Based on FRCP 47, FRCrP 24, 28 U.S.C. § 1870, Batson v. Kentucky, Flowers v. Mississippi, ABA Formal Opinion 466, the Juries Act 1974 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. General information, not legal advice.

Short answer: Voir dire is the questioning of prospective jurors before a trial to find out whether they can decide the case fairly. The judge, the lawyers or both ask about background, experience and attitudes. Each side can then ask the judge to remove jurors for cause, without limit, and can strike a fixed number of jurors without giving a reason, subject to the ban on race and sex discrimination.

Key takeaways

• In federal court the judge decides who asks the questions. Rule 47 (civil) and Rule 24 (criminal) let the judge question jurors directly or allow the lawyers to do it.
• Federal peremptory challenges are fixed: 3 per party in civil cases, 20 per side in capital cases, 6 for the government and 10 for the defence in other felonies, and 3 per side in misdemeanours.
• Batson v. Kentucky (1986) bars race-based strikes, and later cases extended it to civil trials and to sex. Critics say its three-step test is easy to satisfy with a neutral-sounding reason.
• England and Wales abolished the defence’s peremptory challenge in 1988. Jurors are picked at random and lawyers do not question them in the American way.

What is voir dire?

Voir dire comes from Law French and is usually translated as “to speak the truth”. In a jury trial it is the stage where prospective jurors, called the venire or panel, are questioned to decide whether they are suitable to sit. The goal is an impartial jury, which the Sixth Amendment guarantees in criminal cases and which the Seventh Amendment and court rules protect in civil cases.

The process has two parts. The court and counsel gather information through questions and sometimes a written questionnaire, then the parties use it to make challenges. A juror who works for the defendant company will usually be removed, and the panel is narrowed by peremptory strikes until a jury, plus any alternates, is sworn.

Voir dire is used to pick trial juries. See our guides to the traverse jury and the grand jury and to choosing a jury trial or a judge trial.

How does voir dire work in federal court?

In federal civil cases, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(a) says the court “may permit the parties or their attorneys to examine prospective jurors or may itself do so.” If the judge does the questioning, the judge must either let the lawyers make further inquiry the court considers proper or ask the lawyers’ additional questions that it considers proper.

The criminal rule is almost identical. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(a) lets the court examine the jurors or allow the attorneys to do so, and if the court asks the questions it must let the attorneys ask further proper questions or submit questions for the judge to ask.

This gives federal judges wide control: some ask most questions themselves from lists the parties propose, while others give lawyers more room. State courts set their own rules, so the first job for any trial lawyer is to read the local rules and the judge’s standing orders on jury selection.

How many peremptory challenges does each side get?

In federal court the numbers are fixed by statute and rule. For civil cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1870 gives each party three peremptory challenges, and lets the court treat several plaintiffs or several defendants as a single party or allow extra challenges. For criminal cases, Rule 24(b) sets the figures below.

States set their own numbers, and one state has gone further than any other. The Arizona Supreme Court amended its civil and criminal rules in August 2021 to eliminate peremptory challenges altogether for jury selections from 1 January 2022, so Arizona lawyers must rely on challenges for cause. Bills to restore them have been introduced in the Arizona legislature, including a 2025 bill for civil cases that did not become law.

What is the difference between a challenge for cause and a peremptory challenge?

A challenge for cause asks the judge to remove a juror because there is a specific reason the juror cannot serve fairly. Typical grounds are a relationship with a party, lawyer or witness, a financial interest in the outcome, a fixed opinion about the case, or an admitted bias the juror cannot set aside. There is no set number of cause challenges. The judge rules on each one, and 28 U.S.C. § 1870 confirms that all challenges for cause are determined by the court.

A peremptory challenge lets a party remove a juror without stating a reason, up to the limit allowed. Lawyers use them on jurors they expect to lean against them where nothing would justify removal for cause, subject to Batson.

The two work together. Good questioning lets a juror admit a bias on the record, which turns a likely peremptory strike into a cause challenge and saves a strike for later. Jurors who have a hardship are a separate matter, and are usually excused by the court; our guide to valid reasons to be excused from jury duty covers the common ones.

What did Batson v. Kentucky decide, and where does it fall short?

In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike all four Black people on the venire, leaving an all-white jury to try a Black defendant. The Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids a prosecutor from striking jurors because of their race. Later decisions widened the rule. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete (1991) applied it to private litigants in civil cases, and J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994) extended it to strikes based on sex.

A Batson objection runs in three steps. The objecting party makes a prima facie showing of discrimination, the striking party gives a race-neutral reason, and the judge decides whether that reason is genuine or a pretext. The weakness is at step two. In Purkett v. Elem (1995), the Court said the explanation at that stage does not need to be persuasive or even plausible, only neutral on its face; there, a prosecutor’s dislike of a juror’s long hair and beard was enough to move to step three.

The Court has shown it will act on clear patterns. In Flowers v. Mississippi (2019), the State had tried Curtis Flowers six times. It tried to strike all 36 Black prospective jurors across the first four trials, and at the sixth trial it asked 145 questions of five Black prospective jurors against 12 questions of the 11 white jurors who were seated. The Court found clear error and reversed.

Some states have gone further than Batson. Washington’s General Rule 37, effective from April 2018, asks whether an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the strike, and says the court need not find purposeful discrimination. It also lists presumptively invalid reasons, such as distrust of law enforcement.

What questions do lawyers ask in voir dire?

The best questions are open-ended. “Tell me about any experience you have had with” works better than “Can you be fair?”, which almost everyone answers yes. Sample questions by case type, to check against the judge’s limits:

• Criminal cases: Have you, a relative or a close friend ever been the victim of a crime, been arrested or worked in law enforcement? How do you feel about a defendant who chooses not to testify? Would you give a police officer’s testimony more or less weight than anyone else’s?
• Personal injury and malpractice cases: Have you ever made an injury claim, or worked in insurance, claims handling or healthcare? What are your views on money damages for pain and suffering?
• Employment cases: Have you ever supervised staff, hired or fired anyone, or felt you were treated unfairly at work? Have you ever made or responded to a workplace complaint?
• Commercial cases: Do you run or own a business? How do you feel about large corporations? Have you ever been in a contract dispute?
• Every case: Do you know anyone involved in this case? Have you read or heard anything about it? Is there anything about the nature of this case that would make it hard for you to be impartial?

Ask the panel a question, then follow up individually with jurors who raise a hand, away from the panel if the topic is sensitive. For more on how trial lawyers build a case for the jury, see our pieces on trial strategies from experienced trial lawyers and what juries expect in injury trials.

How do lawyers prepare for jury selection?

Preparation starts well before trial. Lawyers draft proposed questions and, in many courts, a written juror questionnaire for the judge to approve, which lets jurors answer sensitive questions privately. Many teams also prepare a profile of the best and worst jurors for their case, a seating chart to track answers and a plan for using strikes.

Online research has become part of the routine, within ethical limits. In ABA Formal Opinion 466, issued on 24 April 2014, the ABA ethics committee said a lawyer may review a juror’s or potential juror’s public internet presence, but must not send a request for access to a private account, because that would be an improper ex parte communication under Model Rule 3.5(b). As the ABA Journal summary explains, the opinion treats an automatic notice from a network such as LinkedIn, telling the juror that the lawyer viewed the profile, as a communication from the platform rather than the lawyer. The New York State Bar Association has taken a stricter view of such notices, so check your own state’s guidance.

Judges may add their own limits on juror research, and the ethical duty extends to jury consultants and staff working for the lawyer. This is one of the skills that marks out a specialist, as our article on how a trial attorney differs from other lawyers explains.

How is jury selection different in England and Wales?

An American trial lawyer would find English jury selection very short. Jurors are summoned at random from the electoral register, and section 11 of the Juries Act 1974 says the jury for each trial is selected by ballot in open court from the panel. There is no general practice of lawyers questioning jurors about their views or background.

The defence’s right to remove jurors without cause has gone. Section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 abolished the right to challenge jurors without cause in trials on indictment. A party can still challenge for cause under section 12 of the Juries Act 1974, which the judge tries, but the party must show a ground.

The prosecution kept a narrower power known as stand by, which asks a juror to stand aside without giving a reason. The Attorney General’s 2012 guidelines on stand by say the Crown should not use it to shape a jury or for tactical advantage, and in essence limit it to national security and terrorism cases authorised by the Attorney General, or a manifestly unsuitable juror where the defence agrees.

Frequently asked questions

What does voir dire mean?

Voir dire is a Law French term usually translated as “to speak the truth”. It refers to the questioning of prospective jurors to decide whether they can serve fairly, and the same term is used for preliminary questioning of a witness, such as an expert, about competence to testify.

How long does voir dire take?

It depends on the court, the judge and the case. A routine trial may seat a jury within a day, while a high-profile trial with a written questionnaire and individual questioning can take much longer. The judge controls the pace.

Can a lawyer strike a juror for any reason?

Almost. A peremptory challenge needs no stated reason, but it cannot be based on race, ethnicity or sex. If the other side raises a Batson objection, the lawyer must give a neutral explanation and the judge decides whether it is genuine.

Is it legal for lawyers to look up jurors on social media?

Under ABA Formal Opinion 466, passive review of public content is allowed, but a lawyer must not send a friend or follow request or otherwise ask for access. State bars and individual judges may impose stricter rules, so lawyers should check both before researching jurors.

What happens if a juror lies during voir dire?

If it comes to light during trial, the judge can remove the juror and seat an alternate. After a verdict, the losing party may seek a new trial, but usually must show that an honest answer would have supported a challenge for cause.

Do UK lawyers question jurors before a trial?

Not in the American sense. In England and Wales jurors are selected at random, the defence has had no peremptory challenge since 1988, and challenges for cause are rare. The prosecution’s right of stand by is limited by Attorney General guidelines to exceptional cases.

This article is general information about jury selection in US federal courts and in England and Wales and is not legal advice. Rules on voir dire, questionnaires, juror research and peremptory challenges differ between states and between judges, so always check the applicable rules and court orders, and take advice from a qualified lawyer on any specific case.