Jury Selection and Voir Dire Checklist: A Practical Checklist

Summary. Voir dire exists to identify the people who cannot be fair to your client and to build a record supporting their removal, and almost everything else lawyers do in jury selection is a distraction. This checklist sets the preparation sequence — learning the judge's format, deciding whether to seek a questionnaire, writing strike criteria in advance — then runs the day: question design that produces information rather than agreement, preserving a cause challenge before anyone offers rehabilitation, the arithmetic of limited peremptories, and the contemporaneous notes that answer a Batson objection. It closes with the post-verdict issues that trace back to what was asked and preserved.

What this checklist is for. Preparing and conducting jury selection in a civil trial. For the underlying doctrine, see Jury Selection and Voir Dire.

Phase 1 — Sixty days out

Determine the judge's voir dire practice: who asks the questions, how much time each side gets, and whether written questions must be submitted in advance.
Determine the selection method — struck jury (question everyone, then strike from a qualified panel) or strike and replace (fill the box, strike, replace, repeat). It changes strike strategy completely.
Determine the number of peremptory challenges and any additional challenges for alternates. In federal civil cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1870 provides three per side, with the court able to treat multiple parties as one side.
Determine panel size and unanimity requirements, and whether the parties may stipulate to a smaller jury or a non-unanimous verdict.
Read the standing orders and ask the courtroom deputy about local practice.
Decide whether to seek a written questionnaire, and move early and jointly if so.
Identify the case's vulnerabilities — the facts a juror will hold against your client before hearing anything — and design questions to surface who holds them.
Draft proposed voir dire questions for submission, neutrally worded, well organized.
Consider whether the case justifies community attitude research or a mock trial, and whether a shadow jury is warranted.
Evaluate a challenge to the array if there is a basis; it must be raised before voir dire begins and requires a sworn statement of facts.

Phase 2 — Two weeks out

Finalize the question outline, ranked so the most important subjects come first if time is cut.
Write the strike criteria in advance — which experiences, attitudes, and characteristics make a juror unacceptable and why. Deciding this in the moment produces gut reactions and Batson problems.
Prepare a juror chart or seating grid for recording answers, with a column for quotes.
Assign roles: who questions, who takes notes, who watches the panel's reactions, who tracks the strike arithmetic.
Prepare the client for the room: sit up, look at whoever is speaking, react to nothing, and behave the same way in the hallway.
Plan permissible juror research, consistent with ABA Formal Opinion 466 — public information only, no communication, no connection requests, and no platform that notifies the juror of a profile view.

Phase 3 — Questioning

Use open-ended questions. "What's your view of lawsuits like this one?" produces information; "You can be fair, can't you?" produces nothing.
Ask about experiences rather than opinions — prior lawsuits, prior jury service, being sued, supervising or firing someone, being treated unfairly by a company.
Follow the thread. The valuable answers come from the second and third follow-up.
Normalize the disqualifying answer so jurors are willing to give it.
Use the panel: "Who else has had that experience?" and shows of hands.
Cover, at minimum: prior litigation experience; relationships with parties, counsel, witnesses, and the industry; attitudes toward the specific claim type; ability to award money where damages are contested; comfort with the burden of proof; exposure to publicity; and hardship.
Close with the most productive question in voir dire: "Is there anything about this case that makes you think you might not be the right juror for it?" — then wait through the silence.
Do not argue the case. It wastes time, draws objections, and teaches jurors to give the answers you want.
Identify the leaders — who speaks first, who others look at, who holds views confidently. A leader against you is worth more than two quiet jurors against you.
Take notes with quotes, not conclusions.

Phase 4 — Cause challenges

Get the bias on the record in the juror's own words, before anyone offers rehabilitation.
Do not ask the magic question yourself — "could you set that aside?" hands the other side its rehabilitation.
Follow up on equivocation: "You said you'd try. What does 'try' mean? Is this something you'd have to work at?"
Where the juror gives a formulaic recantation after substantive answers showing bias, argue that the court need not accept it.
Assert implied bias where a relationship or interest exists — employment by a party, a family relationship, a financial stake.
Confirm statutory qualifications where relevant.
Make the challenge and state the grounds specifically.
If denied, note the exception, and if you are forced to use a peremptory on that juror, say so on the record and identify the juror you would otherwise have struck. Preserving the harm is what makes the issue reviewable.

Phase 5 — Peremptories and Batson

Rank the strike list by who will lead the room against you, not by who you dislike.
Confirm the arithmetic before exercising the last strike, accounting for the selection method.
For each intended strike, record contemporaneously the specific answer that prompted it. A note reading "R3 — said insurance companies deny valid claims; hesitated on damages" is a complete answer to a challenge.
If challenged, offer a facially neutral explanation tied to your notes.
If challenging, make the objection before the venire is discharged, and present a comparative juror analysis identifying a seated juror who shares the characteristic and was not struck.
Address disparate questioning — whether the striking party questioned similarly situated jurors differently.
In jurisdictions with expanded rules (several states now enumerate presumptively invalid reasons such as inattentiveness or demeanor), check the local standard; the familiar explanations may be impermissible.

Phase 6 — After the panel is seated

Confirm the record reflects every challenge, ruling, and objection.
Renew any array objection before the venire is discharged.
Note the panel composition for post-trial purposes.
Request the instruction prohibiting independent research and social media about the case.
Continue permissible monitoring for juror misconduct, and report anything discovered to the court immediately rather than investigating independently.

Phase 7 — Post-verdict

Evaluate nondisclosure under the McDonough standard: a juror failed to answer honestly a material question, and a correct answer would have provided a valid basis for a cause challenge. Both elements are required.
Remember that nondisclosure can only be shown as to a question that was asked — which is why submitting your own questions matters.
Check local rules on post-verdict juror contact; many require court permission.
Understand Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b): juror testimony about deliberations is barred, with exceptions for extraneous prejudicial information, outside influence, and a mistake in entering the verdict.

Common mistakes

Arguing the case instead of finding the people who cannot be fair.
Asking the rehabilitation question yourself.
Making a cause challenge without the bias in the juror's own words.
Failing to preserve the harm when a cause challenge is denied and a peremptory is used instead.
No contemporaneous strike notes, so a Batson explanation is reconstructed under pressure.
Striking on demeanor or inattentiveness in a jurisdiction that treats those reasons as presumptively invalid.
Not knowing the selection method, and striking as though replacements were known when they are not.
Ignoring the panel's leaders in favor of the jurors who said something objectionable.
Submitting no proposed questions where the judge conducts voir dire, then having no nondisclosure argument later.
Raising a Batson objection after the venire is discharged, when the remedy is gone.

Primary authority

Fed. R. Civ. P. 47 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 48; 28 U.S.C. § 1870; the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861–1878, including § 1867.
Cases: Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994); Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. 284 (2019); Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979); Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray, 248 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2001).
Ethics: ABA Formal Opinion 466 on juror research.

This checklist is educational and not legal advice. Voir dire practice varies dramatically among judges and between federal and state courts, and rules on peremptory challenges, panel size, unanimity, and juror contact differ by jurisdiction. Consult the court's standing orders and qualified trial counsel before trial.