ABA favors in-depth juror questioning in high-profile trials; brief filed June 21

The American Bar Association filed an amicus brief on June 21 with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices in a case related to the Boston Marathon bombing to underscore the importance of extensive questioning of prospective jurors during the voir dire or jury screening process to ensure due process and a fair trial in highly publicized cases.

An ABA amicus brief filed on June 21 highlighted the importance of extensive questioning of prospective jurors.

The issue of how carefully district courts in capital cases must screen prospective jurors was raised last summer when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston vacated the death sentence of Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, who was convicted for his role in the 2013 bombing that killed three people and injured more than 200 others. A three-judge panel upheld the conviction but ruled the federal trial judge did not adequately screen jurors for preconceived biases toward the defendant.

Tsarnaev’s lawyers acknowledged his guilt but argued that he should be spared the death penalty because he was under the strong influence of his older brother, who was killed during a massive manhunt. In March, the Supreme Court agreed to a U.S. Department of Justice request to consider reinstating his death sentence during its next term.

The ABA amicus brief takes no position on whether the Court of Appeals’ judgment should be affirmed or reversed, but said the association filed the brief to convey ABA voir dire policies as they pertain to a defendant’s right to a fair trial. In Tsarnaev’s case, the judge ruled the final group of potential jurors should be asked whether they learned about the bombing through the media and their amount of exposure, but he rejected defense requests for more extensive questioning related to what they specifically heard or the nature or character of their exposure.

The ABA brief, citing the association’s longstanding policies, argued that “if it is likely that any prospective jurors have been exposed to prejudicial publicity, they should be individually questioned to determine what they have read and heard about the case and how any exposure has affected their attitudes toward the trial.” In 1968, after extensive research and interviews with judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, the ABA first adopted free press/fair trial standards, which included guidelines for questioning prospective jurors about exposure to “potentially prejudicial material.”

“The ABA’s long-considered view is that, in high publicity cases, there is no adequate substitute for individualized voir dire content questioning,” the ABA brief said.