Evaluating the Impact of

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Expanded Voir Dire:

Results from Maryland’s Pilot Program

June 2026

Table of Contents

Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii

Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. v

Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................... vi

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

The Pilot Program’s Formation and Mission .............................................................................. 1

Gathering Information ................................................................................................................ 1

Guidance and Education ............................................................................................................. 3

Information, Recommendations, and Next Steps ....................................................................... 4

Summary of Results from the Research and Analysis Department ........................................ 4

Summary of Recommendations .............................................................................................. 5

Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 6

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Adoption of Rule 16-310 ............................................................................................................ 7

Institution of Pilot Project ........................................................................................................... 8

Role of Chairperson and Advisory Board ..............................................................................11

Selection of Expanded Voir Dire Types for Project .................................................................. 13

Methods......................................................................................................................................... 15

Overview of Research Design .................................................................................................. 15

Data Sources and Participants................................................................................................... 16

Expanded Voir Dire Techniques................................................................................................ 16

Survey Administration .............................................................................................................. 16

Analytic Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 17

Summary of Results ...................................................................................................................... 18

Data Collected and Results ........................................................................................................... 22

Judges’ Baseline Survey ........................................................................................................... 22

Voir Dire Type Classification.................................................................................................... 30

Strike and Time Data ................................................................................................................ 34

Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors .................................................................... 41

Questionnaire Use ..................................................................................................................... 45

Experiences of Judges Under Voir Dire Pilot ........................................................................... 50

Post Voir Dire Pilot Feedback: Pilot and Administrative Judges .......................................... 65

Attorney Engagement ............................................................................................................... 67

Attorney Experiences Under Voir Dire Pilot ............................................................................ 70

Jurors’ Experiences Under Expanded Voir Dire ....................................................................... 99

Operational Impacts ................................................................................................................ 108

Assignment and Jury Office Survey Results at 1, 6, and 12 months. ................................. 108

Assignment Office Results ................................................................................................. 109

Jury Office Survey Results .................................................................................................. 111

Jury Office Operational Measures .......................................................................................113

Associated Costs: Juror Payments .......................................................................................115

Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 120

Training and Resources ........................................................................................................... 120

The Judiciary ....................................................................................................................... 120

Attorneys ............................................................................................................................. 122

Litigants .............................................................................................................................. 124

Observations, Recommendations, and Considerations ........................................................... 125

Observations on the Current Status of the Rules ................................................................ 125

Observations Specific to this Project .................................................................................. 125

Considerations and Recommendations ............................................................................... 127

Future Areas of Study ............................................................................................................. 128

Ongoing Jury Data Reporting ................................................................................................. 128

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 129

Appendix A: Advisory Board Meeting Minutes ……….…………………………………... A-1

Appendix B: Judge and Attorney Packets.…………………..…………………………….. A-83

Appendix C: Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) Model Questions …….………… A-134

Appendix D: Survey Instruments …………………………………………………….….. A-175

D1: Judge Baseline Survey …………………………………………………………... A-175

iii

D2: Attorney Survey …………………………………………………………………. A-181

D3: Jury Survey ……………………………………………………………………… A-183

D4: Judge Survey …...………………………………………………………………... A-185

D5: Jury and Assignment Office Survey …………………………………….………. A-187

D6: Judge Post-Pilot Survey …………………………………………………………. A-190

Appendix E: Jury and Assignment Office Results ………………………………….…... A-192

E1: Jury Office 1,6 and 12-Month Check-in ………………………………………… A-192

E2: Assignment and Jury Office Open Comments …………………………………... A-194

Appendix F: Post- Voir Dire Study Pilot and Administrative Judge Feedback ………… A-200

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Juror responses by pilot and comparison groups—“I understood the reason for the

questions asked by either the attorney or judge.” ....................................................................... 101

Figure 2: Juror responses by pilot and comparison groups—“I understood the role of the

attorneys and the judge.”............................................................................................................. 102

Figure 3: Juror responses by pilot and comparison groups—“The questions asked were relevant

to the case.” ................................................................................................................................. 103

Figure 4: Juror responses by pilot and comparison groups—"The questions asked were too

probing or too personal.” ............................................................................................................ 104

Figure 5: Juror responses by pilot and comparison groups—"Were you comfortable with the

questions being asked by the attorney?” ..................................................................................... 105

Figure 6: Juror responses by pilot and comparison groups—"Were you comfortable with the

questions being asked by the judge?” ......................................................................................... 106

Figure 7: Juror responses by pilot and comparison groups—"Who asked you questions?” ...... 107

Figure 8: Large Jurisdiction Juror Per Diem Payments, CY 2023 - CY 2025. Aggregated by pool

only, criminal and civil per diem payment categories. ................................................................117

Figure 9: Medium-Large Jurisdiction Juror Per Diem Payments CY 2023 - CY 2025. Aggregated

by pool only, criminal and civil per diem payment categories. ...................................................118

Figure 10: Medium Jurisdiction Juror Per Diem Payments, CY 2023 - CY 2025. Aggregated by

pool only, criminal and civil per diem payment categories. ........................................................119

Table of Tables

Table 1: Judges’ Baseline Survey Participants .............................................................................. 22

Table 2: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results by Location or Judge Status ....................................... 22

Table 3: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Manner in which Voir Dire was Conducted .............. 23

Table 4: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Variation in Voir Dire Process ................................... 24

Table 5: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Initial Questions ........................................................ 24

Table 6: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Judicial Review ......................................................... 26

Table 7: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Follow-Up Questions ................................................ 27

Table 8: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Current Voir Dire

Process .......................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 9: Categorization of Existing and Expanded Voir Dire ....................................................... 31

Table 10: Voir Dire Events by Agreement Among Survey Respondents ...................................... 33

Table 11: Voir Dire Events, by Voir Dire Type ............................................................................. 34

Table 12: Strike Data Collection Response Rates, by Court and Case Type ................................ 35

Table 13: Voir Dire Length in Hours by Voir Dire Type ............................................................... 36

Table 14: Voir Dire Length in Hours by Court Type..................................................................... 37

Table 15: Strikes for Cause Used by Voir Dire Type .................................................................... 37

Table 16: Peremptory Challenges Used by State’s Attorney/Plaintiff by Voir Dire Type ............ 39

Table 17: Peremptory Challenges Used by Defense/Respondent by Voir Dire Type ................... 39

Table 18: Strikes for Cause Used by Court Type .......................................................................... 39

Table 19: Peremptory Challenges Used by State’s Attorney/Plaintiff by Court Type .................. 40

Table 20: Peremptory Challenges Used by Defense/Respondent ................................................. 41

Table 21: Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors, by Court Location, Case Type, Judge

Type, and Voir Dire Type .............................................................................................................. 42

Table 22: Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors by Voir Dire Length in Hours ........ 43

Table 23: Strikes for Cause Used by Bench or Sidebar Questioning ........................................... 44

Table 24: Peremptory Challenges Used by State’s Attorney/Plaintiff by Bench or Sidebar

Questioning ................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 25: Peremptory Challenges Used by Defense/Respondent ................................................. 45

Table 26: Questionnaire Use, by Court Location, Case Type and Category, Judge Type, and Voir

Dire Type....................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 27: Questionnaire Use by Voir Dire Length in Hours ......................................................... 47

Table 28: Questionnaire Use by Strikes for Cause Used .............................................................. 48

Table 29: Questionnaire Use by Peremptory Challenges Used for State’s Attorney/Plaintiff ...... 49

Table 30: Peremptory Challenges Used by Defense/Respondent ................................................. 49

Table 31: Voir Dire Event Characteristics ..................................................................................... 50

Table 32: Judge’s Survey Response Rate, by Court Location, Judge Status and Case Type ........ 51

Table 33: Voir Dire Type Used as Indicated by Judge .................................................................. 52

Table 34: Judge Experience—"Who was involved in the voir dire process for this case?" ......... 54

Table 35: Judge Experience—"Who asked questions of the potential jurors during voir dire for

this case?” By voir dire and judge type ........................................................................................ 55

Table 36: Judge Experience—How voir dire was conducted. By voir dire and judge type ......... 57

Table 37: Judge Experience—"In your opinion, voir dire took…" By Judge and Voir Dire Type.

....................................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 38: Judge Experience—“Did the voir dire process adequately assist in your ability to detect

juror bias in this case?" By judge and voir dire type. ................................................................... 59

Table 39: Judge Experience—“How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors for

informing the use of peremptory challenges?” By judge and voir dire type. ............................... 60

Table 40: Judge Experience—“How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors to

remove for cause?” By judge and voir dire type........................................................................... 61

Table 41: Judge Experience—“Topics Submitted by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant juror

information necessary to select a jury for this case.” By judge and voir dire type. ...................... 62

Table 42: Judge Experience—“Questions asked by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant juror

information necessary to select a jury in this case.” By judge and voir dire type. ....................... 63

Table 43: Judge Experience—“All or some jurors not answering regular voir dire questioned at

bench or sidebar.” By voir dire and judge type. ............................................................................ 64

Table 44: Attorney’s Survey Response Rates, by Court Location, Judge Status, and Case Type 71

Table 45: Voir Dire Type Used as Indicated by Attorney ............................................................. 72

Table 46: Attorney Experience—“Who asked questions of the potential jurors during voir dire

for this case?” By voir dire and judge type ................................................................................... 73

vii

Table 47: Attorney Experience—“Who asked questions of the potential jurors during voir dire

for this case?” By voir dire type and case category. ..................................................................... 74

Table 48: Attorney Experience—"Who was involved in the voir dire process for this case?” By

voir dire type and pilot vs. comparison attorney responses. ......................................................... 75

Table 49: Attorney Experience—"Who was involved in the voir dire process for this case?” By

voir dire type and case category. ................................................................................................... 76

Table 50: Attorney Experience—How voir dire was conducted. By voir dire and judge type. .... 78

Table 51: Attorney Experience—How voir dire was conducted. By voir dire and case category. 79

Table 52: Attorney Experience—"Did the voir dire process adequately assist in your ability to

detect juror bias in this case?” By voir dire type and pilot vs. comparison attorney responses ... 80

Table 53: Attorney Experience—"Did the voir dire process adequately assist in your ability to

detect juror bias in this case?” By voir dire type and case category. ............................................ 81

Table 54: Attorney Experience—"How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors

for informing the use of peremptory challenges?” By voir dire type and pilot vs. comparison

attorney responses. ........................................................................................................................ 82

Table 55: Attorney Experience—"How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors

for informing the use of peremptory challenges?” By voir dire type and case category. ............. 83

Table 56: Attorney Experience—"How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors

to remove for cause in this case?” By voir dire type and pilot vs. comparison attorney responses.

....................................................................................................................................................... 84

Table 57: Attorney Experience—"How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors

to remove for cause in this case?” By voir dire type and case category. ...................................... 85

Table 58: Attorney Experience—“In your opinion, voir dire took (how much time)?” By voir dire

type and pilot vs. comparison attorney responses. ........................................................................ 86

Table 59: Attorney Experience—“In your opinion, voir dire took (how much time)?” By voir dire

type and case category. ................................................................................................................. 86

Table 60: Attorney Experience—“Questions asked by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant

juror information necessary to select a jury in this case.” By voir dire type and pilot vs.

comparison attorney responses. .................................................................................................... 87

Table 61: Attorney Experience—“Questions asked by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant

juror information necessary to select a jury in this case.” By voir dire type and pilot vs.

comparison attorney responses. .................................................................................................... 88

Table 62: Attorney Experience—Topics disallowed. By voir dire type and pilot vs. comparison

attorney responses. ........................................................................................................................ 89

viii

Table 63: Attorney Experience—Topics disallowed. By voir dire type and case category. ......... 89

Table 64: Attorney Experience—“Topics submitted by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant

juror information necessary to select a jury for this case.” By voir dire type and pilot vs.

comparison attorney responses. .................................................................................................... 90

Table 65: Attorney Experience—“Topics submitted by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant

juror information necessary to select a jury for this case.” By voir dire type and case category. 91

Table 66: Attorney Experience—“Were there any topics you wanted to address with jurors that

were disallowed?” By voir dire type and pilot vs. comparison attorney responses. ..................... 92

Table 67: Attorney Experience—“Were there any topics you wanted to address with jurors that

were disallowed?” By voir dire type and case category. .............................................................. 92

Table 68: Judges and Attorneys by Voir Dire Type—"How effective was the voir dire process for

identifying jurors for informing the use of peremptory challenges in this case?” ........................ 93

Table 69: Judges and Attorneys by Voir Dire Type—How effective was the voir dire process for

identifying jurors to remove for cause in this case? ..................................................................... 94

Table 70: Judges and Attorneys by Voir Dire Type—“In your opinion, voir dire took . . .” (how

much time)? .................................................................................................................................. 95

Table 71: Judges and Attorneys by Voir Dire Type—"Did the voir dire process adequately assist

in your ability to detect juror bias?” ............................................................................................. 96

Table 72: Judges and Attorneys by Voir Dire Type—"Questions asked by attorneys were likely to

elicit relevant juror information necessary to select a jury in this case.” ..................................... 97

Table 73: Judges and Attorneys by Voir Dire Type—"Topics submitted by attorneys were likely

to elicit relevant juror information necessary to select a jury in this case.” ................................. 98

Table 74: Average and Median Juror Responses Received, by Court Type and Case Type ......... 99

Table 75: Jurors’ Survey Response Rates, by Circuit Court ....................................................... 100

Evaluating the Impact of Expanded Voir Dire:

Results from Maryland’s Pilot Program

Executive Summary

Following is the executive summary of the Honorable Laura S. Ripken, as chair of the Advisory

Board, with contributions from Dr. Jamie L. Walter, as director of the Research and Analysis

Department in the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Pilot Program’s Formation and Mission

In September of 2024, the Supreme Court of Maryland adopted Maryland Rule 16-310, creating a

“pilot program to implement the use of expanded voir dire” and report its findings. The Honorable

Laura S. Ripken, at the request of the Court chaired the Advisory Board charged with fulfilling

that mission. The Advisory Board included fifteen selected members, including judges, judiciary

employees, legislators and various stakeholder representatives.

Eight pilot jurisdictions, varying in size and region, were designated and agreed to participate. In

each jurisdiction, the respective administrative judge selected pilot judges with differing levels of

experience and backgrounds, all of whom agreed to participate. The remaining judges in each of

the pilot jurisdictions constituted the comparison group.

Throughout the process, the Advisory Board engaged in vibrant discussion on the issues associated

with the pilot program. The Advisory Board reviewed significant information specific to the

subject matter and chose a course of action to move the pilot forward and to collect relevant data.

Gathering Information

The Rule directed the pilot program to gather information and experience to study “the effects of

expanded voir dire on the effectiveness and efficiency of jury selection, case management, juror

satisfaction, public perception of the trial process, court operations, and related concerns[.]” To

that end, the Advisory Board spent much of its time in early meetings considering processes to use

to collect data, as well as the types of expanded voir dire, how project information would be

distributed, the content of disseminated information, targets for data collection, and what types of

data to collect. 1 The Board shared information and concerns and made adjustments as the pilot

progressed. 2

As part of the initial planning, the Research and Analysis Department of the Administrative Office

of the Courts developed data collection instruments which were reviewed and agreed to by the

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on October 25, 2025; November 26, 2024;

December 11, 2024.

See generally Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings.

Advisory Board. 3 That Department also maintained the data collection instruments and the data

collected, and then provided the results. Based on the Rule’s directive to study the effects of

expanded voir dire on the effectiveness and efficiency of jury selection, case management, juror

satisfaction, public perception of the trial process, court operations, and related concerns. A mixedmethods research design that combined quantitative and qualitative data sources was selected as

the most comprehensive approach to evaluating the pilot. Regular meetings were held to inform

and answer questions of the judiciary as well as those of stakeholder groups. 4

The Advisory Board worked diligently to create and distribute packets of information to the pilot

jurisdictions, as well as to the legal community describing the implementation of the expanded

voir dire pilot in the pilot jurisdictions. The Supreme Court reviewed the packets prior to

distribution. 5

The judiciary, along with the various stakeholders, disseminated the information on court websites

and through trial notices. 6 In addition, the Maryland State Bar Association sent a message to its

membership from the judiciary. Stakeholders, likewise, provided notice to their members and

offered specific training for attorneys. The MSBA updated its model questions for voir dire. The

pilot judges and administrative judges of the pilot jurisdictions met regularly, as did other entities

in the judiciary, such as jury commissioners, to effectively advance the mission of the pilot. 7

The Advisory Board created packets of information for the pilot judges to address considerations

and potential uses for various types of expanded voir dire methods. This same information was

shared with attorneys in the packets created by the Advisory Board for that purpose. The

information packets included descriptions and considerations for five types of expanded voir dire,

with the suggestion the varieties of voir dire types could be used alone or combined. The five types

outlined were: traditional voir dire with additional questions for the intelligent exercise of

peremptory strikes; individual voir dire of all jurors; attorney-led voir dire of a panel;

questionnaires; and limited opening remarks at the beginning of voir dire. 8

At the onset of the pilot, the Advisory Board anticipated that the data collection phase would take

six months, to be followed by six months of data review, analysis and report preparation and

submission. As the conclusion of the data collection portion drew close, the Research and Analysis

Department informed the Advisory Board that there were an insufficient number of civil jury pilot

jury trials to provide statistically significant information. Based on jury trial rates that had taken

place at that point, the Advisory Board determined that an additional six months should yield an

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on November 26, 2024; and December 11, 2024.

See generally Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings.

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on October 25, 2025; November 26, 2024;

December 11, 2024.

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on December 11, 2024 and June 9, 2025.

See generally Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings.

For more information, see Appendix B, Expanded Voir Dire packets.

adequate number of civil jury trials in order for sufficient data to be collected. Hence, the Advisory

Board made a request to the Supreme Court to extend Maryland Rule 16-310 for six months. That

request was granted, announcements were made, and the pilot continued. 9

Guidance and Education

Rule 16-310 also directed the gathering of information and experience that may be used to

“develop guidance and education to assist courts, attorneys, and litigants in the implementation of

expanded voir dire statewide[.]”

Based on information gathered during the pilot, further training and education and the availability

of resources for members of the judiciary and attorneys, as well as information for litigants, would

be beneficial regardless of whether a rule change is enacted. The specific content of such training

and information would vary depending the decision made by the Supreme Court of Maryland on

potential rule changes.

The judges, attorneys, and others who have gained experience during this pilot project could be

particularly helpful in training others about voir dire techniques and in explaining the available

resources. Potential subject matter experts for members of the judiciary training and education

include: administrative judges of pilot jurisdictions; the pilot judges; members of the Advisory

Board; jury commissioners; and clerk of court staff in the pilot jurisdictions. Potential subject

matter experts for attorney training and education include members of the Advisory Board as well

as members of the organizations which they represent; local experts as well as experts from other

jurisdictions; attorneys and judges who have participated in using expanded voir dire during the

pilot program; and attorneys and judges who have participated in using expanded voir dire in other

jurisdictions.

For the judiciary, the Advisory Board recommends training and education in collaboration with

the Education Committee of the Judicial Council in conjunction with the Judicial College; the Jury

Use and Management Sub-Committee in conjunction with Professional Development; the

Conference of Circuit Judges; and the administrative judges of the circuit courts. Opportunities for

training and education of judges include mechanisms already in place, such as New Trial Judge

Orientation, the annual judicial conference, judicial college courses, as well as in individual and

circuit-specific events. Targeted training for other judiciary staff such as courtroom clerks and jury

commissioners could likewise be beneficial. Potential beneficial resources for the judiciary include

written materials similar to the information packets created in the pilot project; a shared databank

of resources for Maryland trial judges; bench cards; and a digital library.

For attorneys, the Advisory Board recommends that the Maryland State Bar Association, along

with other stakeholders—such as the Maryland Association for Justice, the Maryland Defense

Counsel, the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, the Maryland Office of the Public

Defender, the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association, and various local and specialty bar

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on May 12, 2026; June 9, 2025; September 8,

2025.

associations—be encouraged to coordinate a joint statewide effort to train and educate Maryland

attorneys on voir dire methods and techniques for challenges for cause and for the intelligent

exercise of peremptory challenges. Specific training recommendations include gathering qualified

local and national speakers with experience in expanded voir dire. These efforts could utilize

sponsorships or discounted rates for appropriate groups to ensure public interest organizations

receive adequate training. In addition to trainings, the MSBA and/or other stakeholders could

coordinate efforts among attorneys to create a databank with written educational materials and

samples for specific types of voir dire materials.

In providing resources for litigants—including pro se litigants—the Advisory Board recommends

providing general information regarding jury selection and methods of voir dire, including

expanded types as appropriate. Specific materials and resources could include an explanatory

video and links to materials outlining types and methods of voir dire. Suggestions for providing

such material include but are not limited to the People’s Law Library; the judiciary’s website

(including local court websites); and the MSBA’s website.

Information, Recommendations, and Next Steps

Finally, Maryland Rule 16-310 directed gathering of information and experience that may be used

to inform the consideration of whether amendments to Rules 2-512 and 4-312 are appropriate.

Summary of Results from the Research and Analysis Department

The data gathered reflects the following results:

•

Prior to the implementation of the pilot, a baseline survey of 181 judges showed

37% used traditional voir dire, while 73% used expanded voir dire methods. Judges

reported that the current voir dire process is generally effective and efficient:

o 96.7% rated the current process as moderately or extremely efficient for

identifying jurors to remove for cause.

o 88.9% rated the current process as moderately or extremely efficient for

informing the use of peremptory challenges.

o 90.0% stated that the current process adequately assists in detecting

juror bias.

o 80.0% reported that, under current processes, voir dire takes the correct

and reasonably necessary time.

The current study included analysis of 887 voir dire events, including 315 pilot and

572 comparison proceedings. Of these, 712 involved criminal cases (253 pilot and

459 comparison voir dire events) and 175 involved civil cases (62 pilot and 113

comparison voir dire events).

o Voir dire duration averaged 3.0 hours in comparison courts and 3.8

hours in pilot courts, with longer times in criminal cases (3.2 hours in

comparison courts to 4.3 hours in pilot courts); average times did not

differ in civil cases (2.1 hours for pilot and comparison courts).

o Voir dire duration averaged 2.8 hours under existing practices and 3.4

hours under expanded practices. Differences were seen in both criminal

•

(3.1 hours under existing and 3.7 hours under expanded practices) and

civil (1.6 hours under existing and 2.2 hours under expanded practices).

Pilot courts averaged more strikes for cause (18.3 in pilot courts vs. 14.9 in

comparison courts) and peremptory challenges by both State/Plaintiff and

Defense/Respondent.

o 4.2 peremptory challenges used by the State/Plaintiff in pilot courts and

3.8 used in comparison courts.

o 6.9 peremptory challenges used by the Defense/Respondent in pilot

courts and 6.1 used in comparison courts.

There were more strikes for cause used when comparing expanded to existing voir

dire practices, regardless of pilot or comparison courtroom.

o In criminal cases, expanded voir dire averaged 19.2 strikes for cause

compared to 13.9 in existing voir dire practices.

o In civil cases, expanded voir dire averaged 6.9 strikes for cause

compared to 5.2 strikes for cause in existing voir dire practices.

Effectiveness ratings for expanded voir dire events were high: 80% of pilot and

92.6% of comparison judges felt voir dire took the right amount of time under

expanded practices.

In a post-pilot survey, judges indicated their intention to continue some expanded

practices, particularly individualized juror questioning. However, they also

highlighted the need for additional training, implementation guidance, and practical

examples should expanded voir dire be implemented more broadly. Judges further

noted varying levels of attorney participation during the pilot.

Attorneys’ responses in the post voir dire event surveys generally reflected higher

reported effectiveness under expanded voir dire practices than under existing

practices. Among attorneys’ responses under expanded voir dire practices, 76.0%

of pilot attorneys’ responses indicated that the voir dire process adequately assisted

in detecting juror bias, compared to 66.6% of comparison attorneys’ responses.

Jurors reported very high levels of understanding regarding the purpose of voir dire

questions, with 96.8% of pilot jurors’ responses and 97.0% of comparison jurors’

responses indicating agreement that they understood the reason why questions were

being asked.

Jurors generally perceived questions as relevant to the case, with 84.2% of pilot

jurors and 84.1% of comparison jurors agreeing that questions were relevant.

Jury yield, juror appearance rates, juror summonses, failure-to-appear rates, and

costs remained generally stable across participating jurisdictions throughout the

study period. Although some year-to-year variation occurred across individual

jurisdictions, no consistent pattern suggested that the pilot adversely affected the

jury operations measured.

Summary of Recommendations

Based on the data gathered, and as expressed in this Report, the Advisory Board makes the

following recommendations:

•

That the Supreme Court of Maryland implement training and guidance for the

judiciary, attorneys, and litigants as outlined in this Report.

That the Supreme Court of Maryland implement standardization of statewide data

collection processes and definitions and establish the formulation and receipt of a

periodic jury data report, as explained in this Report in the section on Ongoing Jury

Data Reporting.

In addition, as the Supreme Court contemplates whether to enact a rule change, the Advisory Board

suggests that the Court consider any of the following possibilities:

•

Enact a rule change that authorizes expanded voir dire for the intelligent use of

peremptory challenges. Such a rule could be consistent with that proposed by the

Rules Committee.

Enact a rule change that authorizes expanded voir dire methods and techniques

including but not limited to the methods examined during this pilot.

Enact a rule change clarifying that expanded voir dire for the intelligent use of

peremptory challenges is authorized upon request within the discretion of the trial

judge.

Enact no rule change; however, implement the training guidance as discussed

herein.

These possibilities are meant to be illustrative and are not intended to be exhaustive.

Next Steps

In addition to encouraging the prompt initiation of training and education, areas of future study

and consideration include:

• Monitoring workload for judges, court staff, and jury clerks and commissioners,

among others impacted in the judiciary, and potential impact on case times and case

time standards.

• Evaluation of the training and its impact on attorneys, judges, jury commissioners,

courtroom clerks, pro-se litigants, and other relevant stakeholders.

• Establishing a periodic jury data report to the Chief Justice to inform on

standardization of statewide data collection processes.

Background

Adoption of Rule 16-310

Maryland Rules 2-512(d)–(e) and 4-312(e)–(f) govern the examination of potential jurors, forcause challenges, and peremptory challenges in the context of civil and criminal trials respectively.

The rules provide for voir dire examination of the jurors for the purpose of determining whether

specific cause exists to disqualify individual jurors who cannot be fair and impartial. 10 In addition

to challenges for cause, parties may exercise peremptory challenges, striking jurors for reasons

other than for cause.

Peremptory challenges have been described as “those which are made to the juror, without

assigning any reason, which the courts are bound to respect.” 11 Although parties have “wide

latitude in making peremptory challenges,” they may not exercise those challenges for

discriminatory reasons “on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity.” 12 As the purpose of juror

examination in Maryland is to determine the existence of a basis for disqualification, voir dire

examination is not required to assist in the exercise of peremptory challenges, 13 although such

questions are also not prohibited.

In the fall of 2024, following the receipt of a report from the Rules Committee suggesting changes

to Rules 2-512 and 4-312 pertaining to jury selection, the Supreme Court of Maryland adopted

Rule 16-310. This rule allowed for the creation of a temporary pilot program to examine the

practice of expanded voir dire for the use of peremptory challenges. The rule provides the

following:

In anticipation of potential changes to Rules 2-512 and 4-312 to identify allowing

“the parties to obtain information that may provide guidance for the use of

peremptory challenges” as an appropriate purpose for juror voir dire (“expanded

voir dire”), the Supreme Court of Maryland may create a pilot program to

implement use of expanded voir dire for that purpose in a representative sample of

circuit courts around the State. The purposes of the pilot program shall include, but

not necessarily be limited to, gathering information and experience that may be

used to: (1) study the effects of expanded voir dire on the effectiveness and

efficiency of jury selection, case management, juror satisfaction, public perception

of the trial process, court operations, and related concerns; (2) develop guidance

and education to assist courts, attorneys, and litigants in the implementation of

expanded voir dire statewide; and (3) inform efforts of the Standing Committee on

See Maryland Rules 2-512(d)–(e) and 4-312(e)–(f); see also Mitchell v. State, 488 Md. 1, 16 (2024).

Whitney v. State, 158 Md. App. 519, 531 (2004).

Pietruszewski v. State, 245 Md. App. 292, 301, cert den. 471 Md. 127 (2020) (quoting Gilchrist v. State,

340 Md. 606, 619 (1995)).

See Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350, 356–57 (2014).

Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Supreme Court to consider whether

amendments to Rules 2-512 and 4-312 are appropriate.

Md. Rule 16-310. 14

Institution of Pilot Project

Following the adoption of Rule 16-310, the Supreme Court of Maryland created the Expanded

Voir Dire Pilot Program, which required the formation of an advisory board, the selection of pilot

jurisdictions, and the selection of judges to serve as pilot judges within the pilot jurisdictions.

Formation of Advisory Board

In forming the Advisory Board, members of constituencies representing various legal perspectives

in Maryland were invited to participate on the Advisory Board by Chief Justice Fader. The

Advisory Board includes the following representatives:

Expanded Voir Dire Pilot Program Advisory Board

Chair

Appellate Court of Maryland

Hon. Laura Ripken

Members

Maryland Defense Counsel

Amy Askew, Esquire

Maryland Office of the Public Defender

Meghan Brennan, Esquire

Circuit Court for Charles County

Hon. Donine Carrington-Martin

Conference of Circuit Judges, Immediate Past Chair

Hon. Audrey Carrión

Maryland House of Delegates

Delegate Luke Clippinger

Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

Hon. Wytonja Curry

Maryland State Bar Association

Timothy Gunning, Esquire

Maryland Office of the Attorney General

Benjamin Harris, Esquire

Conference of Circuit Judges, Chair

Hon. Fred Hecker

Maryland State Court Administrator

Judy Rupp

Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association

Scott Shellenberger, Esquire

Maryland State Senate

Senator William Smith

By its terms, the rule was initially set to automatically expire at end of 2025. However, as discussed in

more detail below, the sunset period was extended until July 1, 2026 at the request of the Advisory Board

due to the insufficient number of civil jury trials. See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on

May 12, 2025; June 9, 2025; September 8, 2025.

Expanded Voir Dire Pilot Program Advisory Board

Maryland Judiciary Director of Research and Analysis

Dr. Jamie Walter

Maryland Association for Justice

Laura Zois, Esquire

In addition, the efforts of the Advisory Board were assisted by the contributions of Aimee Perez,

senior researcher in the Research and Analysis Department and Lauren Stone, chambers counsel

to the Honorable Laura S. Ripken.

Selection of Pilot Jurisdictions

In accordance with Rule 16-310, the pilot program was to be implemented in a representative

sample of circuit courts around the state; hence, a variety of jurisdictions were selected. These

courts vary in size and region across Maryland. The circuit courts selected all agreed to participate

in the pilot program. The jurisdictions included the following:

Expanded Voir Dire Pilot Program Jurisdictions

Allegany County

Anne Arundel County

Baltimore City

Carroll County

Cecil County

Charles County

Montgomery County

Worcester County

Selection of Judges

Following the selection of the pilot jurisdictions, the administrative judge of each pilot jurisdiction

was asked to select a specific number of judges from their jurisdiction to serve as pilot judges. The

number of pilot judges selected was based on the size of the jurisdiction. The administrative judges

were asked to select judges whose experience, knowledge, and views regarding the expanded voir

dire process encompassed a varying range. The administrative judge of each pilot jurisdiction

nominated pilot judges from that judge’s jurisdiction in accordance with this directive, and the

nominated judges were then approved by Chief Justice Fader. The pilot judges included the

following:

Expanded Voir Dire Pilot Program Judges

Allegany County

Judge Jeffrey Getty

Anne Arundel County

Judge Pamela Alban

Judge Michael Malone

Judge Robert Thompson

Baltimore City

Judge Troy Hill

Judge Jeannie Hong

Judge Lynn Stewart Mays

Judge Jennifer Schiffer

Judge Martin Schreiber

Judge Hope Tipton

Carroll County

Judge Maria Oesterreicher

Judge Richard Titus

Cecil County

Judge Cameron A. Brown

Charles County

Judge Makeba Gibbs

Judge William Greer

Expanded Voir Dire Pilot Program Judges

Montgomery County 15

Judge Marybeth Ayres

Judge Sharon Burrell

Judge Christopher Fogleman

Judge David Lease

Judge John Maloney

Judge Rachel McGuckian

Worcester County

Judge Brian Shockley

Role of Chairperson and Advisory Board

Throughout the project, the chairperson coordinated meetings and discussions with the Advisory

Board, the administrative judges of the pilot jurisdictions, and the pilot judges. At the

commencement of the project, the chairperson served in requesting and consolidating the Advisory

Board’s contributions to the information packets and facilitating discussion of the survey

instruments to reach finalized versions of all products. During the active portion of the pilot, the

chairperson regularly met with the pilot judges, as well as the Advisory Board members, to monitor

the project and provide guidance, feedback, and updates. During the data analysis and report

writing phase of the project, the chairperson regularly met with members of the Research &

Analysis Department to participate in preparing this Report. The chairperson also requested and

consolidated the contributions of the Advisory Board members into the final version of this Report.

Preparation for the project

Subsequent to the formation of the Advisory Board, and prior to the pilot project’s implementation

in the circuit courts, the Advisory Board coordinated the preparation of materials for judges,

materials for attorneys, and the dissemination of notices for litigant awareness of the project.

Judge Jill Cummins, Judge Michael McAuliffe, and Judge Margaret Schweitzer served as pilot judges

between January and June 2025. Due to rotations, they were replaced as pilot judges by Judge Marybeth

Ayres, Judge Christopher Fogleman, and Judge Rachel McGuckian for the period between July and

December 2025.

Early in the project, the Advisory Board created a packet of information to supply to the pilot

judges addressing considerations and potential uses for various types of expanded voir dire

methods. To create the content of the packet, members of the Advisory Board formed a sub-group

to propose to the entire board a variety of options for expanded voir dire and implementation

guidance. The document, once approved by the subgroup, was reviewed by the administrative

judges of the pilot jurisdictions and the pilot judges before being approved by the full Advisory

Board and submitted for review to the Supreme Court of Maryland. The Advisory Board approved

the packet of information for dissemination, and it was sent to the pilot judges. 16

The Advisory Board also prepared a packet of materials for guidance for attorneys regarding the

voir dire pilot. The Advisory Board elected to include the same information that was in the packet

for the pilot judges to attorneys in order to ensure that all had a thorough understanding of the pilot

process. In addition, the Maryland State Bar Association’s representative on the Advisory Board

assisted in an effort of the MSBA’s special voir dire committee to update proposed expanded voir

dire questions in time for use in the implementation of the expanded voir dire. 17

The Advisory Board worked closely with the Research and Analysis Department in the

Administrative Office of the Courts of the Maryland Judiciary which developed the data collection

tools and maintained the research information. The board was instrumental in determining survey

questions to be posed for data collection as well as other data collection such as that regarding

jurors.

In addition, the Advisory Board, individually and with the entities that the board members

represented, substantially assisted in advising attorneys and the public regarding the pilot and all

relevant information associated with the pilot’s start. Once the attorney packets were public, those

packets were posted, along with a notice, on the Maryland judiciary website. The packets and a

notice were also published by the MSBA via email to all members. 18 Additionally, notices with a

link to the attorney packet were posted on the websites of the pilot circuit courts. Further, the

Advisory Board members were asked to disseminate the information to their constituencies and

indicated they did so. 19 During the pilot project, at the suggestion of members of the Advisory

Board, information was added to trial notices discussing the pilot project. 20

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on October 25, 2025; November 26, 2024;

December 11, 2024.

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on October 25, 2025; November 26, 2024; see

also Appendix C, MSBA Model Questions.

When the project was extended, the links to the information packets were updated and published again

by the MSBA via email. See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meeting on June 9, 2025.

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meeting on December 11, 2024.

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meeting on June 9, 2025.

Monitoring the project

As the data collection process commenced, the chair of the Advisory Board met regularly with the

administrative judges, to elicit feedback and resolve questions and concerns, and with the pilot

judges, to enable them to share thoughts and ideas to assist in their shared experiences. For the

first six months of the active portion of the project, the chair met with the pilot judges biweekly.

Following the project’s extension, as a result of discussion with the pilot judges, the meetings were

reduced to monthly. Administrative judges of the pilot jurisdictions were also provided with

periodic updates regarding pilot and comparison judge survey completion rates to foster survey

completion and to address issues as appropriate.

The board continued to meet regularly to consider feedback, particularly concerning survey

response rates. The board also monitored the project and made any necessary adjustments and

improvements. In April of 2025, it was apparent that the attorneys’ response rates were lower than

anticipated and lower than was needed to provide reliable data. To address the low attorneys’

response rates and to further attorney survey completion, members of the Advisory Board directly

reached out to attorneys who had not completed surveys but had been identified as having

participated in voir dire events in the pilot jurisdictions. The attorneys’ response rate increased

after this time-consuming effort by members of the Advisory Board that commenced in April of

2025. 21 Members of the Advisory Board also participated in town halls and other public education

engagement to ensure members of the legal community were informed about the project. 22

The Advisory Board also monitored the number of voir dire events that occurred to ensure that the

number of voir dire events was sufficient to produce a meaningful result. In May of 2025, after

determining, in consultation with the Research and Analysis Department, that the number of civil

jury trials was insufficient, the Advisory Board requested and obtained a six-month extension from

the Supreme Court to allow additional time to reach a statistically significant number. 23

Review and recommendations

The Advisory Board also reviewed the data summaries contained in this report and provided

feedback on drafting the report, as well as the considerations and recommendations to the Supreme

Court based on that data.

Selection of Expanded Voir Dire Types for Project

As referenced previously, prior to the active commencement of the expanded voir dire portion of

the project, the Advisory Board created a packet of information for the pilot judges concerning

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meeting on April 10, 2025.

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meeting on September 8, 2025.

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on May 12, 2026; June 9, 2025; September 8,

2025.

considerations and potential uses for various types of expanded voir dire methods. As noted, this

same information was also shared with attorneys. To prepare this information, members of the

Advisory Board formed a workgroup to prepare a menu of forms of expanded voir dire and

considerations for trial judges. The workgroup, having considered various types, proposed five

types of expanded voir dire for this purpose. This was developed into the information packets

approved by the Advisory Board. 24 The Advisory Board likewise supplied potential considerations

for the pilot judges as to each potential voir dire type, as well as the suggestion for consideration

of combining varieties of voir dire types. Each expanded voir dire type and description suggested

by the Advisory Board is identified below. 25

Traditional voir dire with additional questions for the intelligent exercise of peremptory strikes

Under this form of expanded voir dire, the trial judge performs voir dire in the traditional manner

based on the trial court’s preferences with the addition of questions to be submitted by counsel to

facilitate the intelligent exercise of peremptory strikes.

Individual juror voir dire at the bench or outside the trial courtroom, i.e., a conference room, or

another courtroom if available

Under this form of expanded voir dire, all questions are posed to the entire panel, and then the

court reviews the answers with the attorneys and prospective jurors one at a time. All potential

jurors meet with the court and the attorneys even if they did not respond to any of the questions.

Attorney-led voir dire of a panel

Under this form of expanded voir dire, the trial judge permits attorneys to question the jury panel

directly.

Questionnaires

Under this form of expanded voir dire, general or case-specific questionnaires are prepared,

distributed, and completed by the panel prior to questioning of jurors.

Limited opening remarks before the beginning of voir dire

Under this form of expanded voir dire, before voir dire of the panel is conducted by the trial judge

or with participation by counsel, the attorneys are permitted to make brief preliminary comments

to the panel to assist in framing the inquiry to follow.

See Appendix A, Minutes of Advisory Board Meetings on October 25, 2025; November 26, 2024;

December 11, 2024.

See Appendix B, Expanded Voir Dire packets.

Methods

Overview of Research Design

Maryland Rule 16-310 directed the Judiciary to study the effects of expanded voir dire on the

effectiveness and efficiency of jury selection, case management, juror satisfaction,

public perception of the trial process, court operations, and related concerns. To address

these objectives, a mixed-methods research design was selected to provide the most

comprehensive approach to evaluating the pilot. This evaluation employed a mixed-methods

research design combining quantitative and qualitative data sources to assess the impacts of the

Expanded Voir Dire Pilot Program.

Quantitative data consists of numerical measures that can be summarized and analyzed

statistically. In this study, quantitative measures included voir dire duration, strikes for cause,

peremptory challenges, juror yield, juror failure-to-appear rates, jury summonses, jury

reimbursement costs, and survey response frequencies. Qualitative data is non-numerical,

descriptive, and sometimes subjective information gathered through techniques such as openended questions, observations, focus groups, meeting notes, or interviews. In the present study,

open-ended questions in particular were used to help to explain how participants experience the

pilot and to provide context to the quantitative data.

Using a mixed-method approach is particularly relevant in public policy research because

questions being addressed may not always be answered through administrative records or survey

response counts. Similarly, survey responses can reflect participants’ subjective

experiences. Accordingly, findings in the report draw on both objective operational measures and

participant-reported experiences as measured in response counts and through open-ended

questions.

The study employed a quasi-experimental design. Unlike a true experimental study, participants

were not randomly assigned to expanded voir dire and non-expanded voir dire groups. Rather,

designated pilot courtrooms were compared with comparison courtrooms, and additional analysis

examined voir dire practices employed in those courtrooms. This approach acknowledges the

reality of court operations and is common in public policy research where random assignment is

impractical or unethical.

Judges retained discretion regarding how voir dire was conducted. Survey responses indicated

varied voir dire preferences, practices, and participation from case to case. As a result, the study

examined the data from multiple perspectives, including pilot versus comparison courtrooms, and

expanded versus existing voir dire practices. This analytical approach provides a more complete

understanding of how expanded voir dire functioned and its potential impacts; however, it also

created methodological challenges to attributing observed outcomes to any single factor.

Data sources included a comprehensive range of quantitative and qualitative measures. These

included baseline data on all circuit court judges’ voir dire practices collected through surveys,

post-voir dire surveys completed by judges, attorneys and jurors in pilot locations. Additionally,

the study analyzed metrics including jury strikes, voir dire and trial durations, administrative data

on jury summonses, failure-to-appear rates and juror yield. Operational impacts were assessed

through surveys of jury and assignment office staff, while cost implications were evaluated through

jury reimbursement records. Finally, pilot-exit surveys of administrative judges and pilot judges

in the pilot courts provided reflective insights on the overall effects of the pilot program.

Data Sources and Participants

The study relied on multiple post-participation surveys administered to key stakeholders, including

judges, attorneys, jurors, and court staff in pilot jurisdictions. Each survey was designed to capture

perspectives specific to the respondent’s role in the jury selection process while allowing for

comparisons of perceived effectiveness, fairness, and operational impacts. Surveys included a

combination of structured and open-ended response items. Responses were collected

confidentially. Each survey focused on the role-specific domains for judges, attorneys, jurors, and

court staff. The full set of survey instruments is included in Appendix D.

Expanded Voir Dire Techniques

As described in the section on Expanded Voir Dire Types for Project, a range of voir dire techniques

beyond traditional Maryland practice were permitted under the pilot. Although final discretion as

to voir dire style lies with the court, judges were encouraged to select various styles of expanded

voir dire depending on what works best for the trial and courtroom during the pilot time frame.

When implemented, expanded voir dire in a case could consist of one or more of the techniques

described.

To support implementation, the Advisory Board developed a guidance packet outlining potential

approaches and providing practical examples for judges and attorneys. (See Appendix B).

Survey Administration

Surveys were administered to prospective jurors participating in voir dire in pilot circuit courts

throughout 2025. 26 Jurors were informed that their participation was voluntary and would not

affect their service obligations or treatment by the court. Court staff and judges encouraged

participation.

Judges received a bench card with a survey link at the onset of the pilot and periodic reminder

emails to complete the survey. Administrative judges received regular updates on survey response

rates for jury trials in their jurisdictions.

Juror surveys were distributed by jury staff and jury commissioners, bailiffs, or courtroom clerks using

survey cards typically provided in jury assembly rooms or courtrooms. The timing of distribution varied

slightly by jurisdiction, and occurred during jury assembly or orientation, prior to voir dire, during breaks,

or upon juror excusal or dismissal.

Survey cards also were placed at attorney tables and judges reminded attorneys to complete the

surveys. In addition, members of the Advisory Board conducted targeted follow-up with attorneys

to encourage survey participation.

Jury office staff and assignment staff surveys were sent via email with a link to the survey.

Analytic Strategy

Descriptive statistics were used to examine response patterns within and across surveys.

Comparative analyses were conducted to assess differences between pilot courts and other

Maryland courts, including consideration of the representativeness of the pilot locations. Multivariate analyses were conducted to account for potential confounding factors. Case-level data were

incorporated into the analysis, including case category (civil or criminal) and, for criminal cases,

lead offense type (e.g., person, property, drug, weapon and public order offenses). 27

National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Court Statistics Project criminal case category mapping was

used.

See

https://www.ncsc.org/sites/default/files/media/document/State-Court-Guide-to-StatisticalReporting.pdf

Summary of Results

The Expanded Voir Dire Pilot Program was designed to study the effects of expanded voir dire on

the effectiveness and efficiency of jury selection, case management, juror satisfaction, public

perception of the trial process, court operations, and related concerns. Overall, the findings indicate

that the pilot changed how voir dire was conducted by the pilot judges in participating courts,

particularly through increased attorney participation and individualized juror questioning,

increasing the length of time taken to conduct voir dire, as well as increased use of strikes for cause

and peremptory challenges; other court impacts were more limited.

The study included analysis of 887 voir dire events, including 315 pilot and 572 comparison

proceedings. Of these, 712 involved criminal cases (253 pilot and 459 comparison voir dire events)

and 175 involved civil cases (62 pilot and 113 comparison voir dire events). The evaluation

incorporated survey responses from judges, attorneys, jurors, jury office personnel, and

administrative judges, along with operational data, data on number of strikes for cause and

peremptory challenges, and measures of voir dire duration.

To help ensure an accurate understanding of the current landscape, voir dire practices for all circuit

court judges were also examined. A total of 181 judges who had presided over a jury trial in the

previous twelve months completed a baseline survey, including 91 from comparison and 83 from

pilot locations, and 7 senior judges. No statistically significant differences were found by court

location, so results are presented in the aggregate. Findings indicated that while the use of

traditional voir dire was limited to 37.0% of judges responding, expanded voir dire is currently

being used as judges reported substantial use of expanded voir dire practices examined in the study,

those included but are not limited to, most commonly traditional voir dire with additional questions

for the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges (32.6%), and individual juror voir dire

conducted at the bench or outside the courtroom (26.7%). Judges reported that the current voir dire

process is generally effective and efficient. Specifically, 96.7% rated the process as moderately or

extremely efficient for identifying jurors to remove for cause, and 88.9% rated it as moderately or

extremely efficient for informing the use of peremptory challenges. Additionally, 90.0% stated that

the current voir dire process adequately assists in detecting juror bias, while 80.0% reported that

voir dire takes the correct and reasonably necessary time.

With the baseline findings established, the remaining summary addresses the findings from the

pilot and examines how expanded voir dire practices were applied and their impacts. Regarding

efficiency and case management, there was a measurable impact of the pilot on the duration of

voir dire proceedings. Voir dire in pilot courts was statistically significantly longer than in

comparison courts. Overall, average voir dire length increased from 3.0 hours in comparison courts

to 3.8 hours in pilot courts. The increase was concentrated in criminal cases, where average voir

dire length increased from 3.2 hours to 4.3 hours (comparison versus pilot); average voir dire times

did not differ for civil trials.

Pilot versus comparison courtrooms also differed in strikes for cause and peremptory challenges,

with pilot courtrooms demonstrating higher use of strikes for cause and peremptory challenges.

The average number of strikes for cause used in pilot courtrooms was 18.3 compared to 14.9 in

comparison courts, with statistically significant differences concentrated in criminal cases (21.6

vs. 16.6). The average number of peremptory challenges used by the State/Plaintiff was also

significantly higher in pilot courts (4.2 vs. 3.8), as was the number used by the Defense/Respondent

(6.9 vs. 6.1).

Additionally, there was greater use of strikes for cause under expanded voir dire practices

compared to existing practices. The average number of strikes for cause during expanded voir dire

events was 16.9 compared to 12.3 during existing voir dire practices. In criminal cases, expanded

voir dire averaged 19.2 strikes for cause compared to 13.9 in existing voir dire practices. Median

values resulted in similar patterns.

Across measures of effectiveness, the post voir dire event surveys revealed that judges in both pilot

and comparison groups generally reported high levels of perceived effectiveness under both

existing and expanded practices. Under expanded practices, 89.2% (264) of pilot judges’ responses

and 95.2% (397) of comparison judges’ responses indicated that voir dire adequately assisted in

detecting juror bias.

Ratings regarding effectiveness for identifying jurors for removal for cause were high across both

existing and expanded practices, including, with 96.3% (285) of pilot judges’ responses and 98.8%

(414) of comparison judges’ responses under expanded practices, compared to 100% (13) of pilot

judges’ responses and 97.5% (117) of comparison judges’ responses under existing practices

indicating that the process was extremely or moderately effective. Ratings regarding informing

peremptory challenges under expanded practices were similarly high, reported by 90.1% (266) of

pilot and 93.6% (392) of comparison judges’ responses. Most judges also reported that voir dire

took the appropriate amount of time under both models, existing and expanded, although ratings

differed by group. Under expanded practices, 80.0% (236) of pilot judges’ responses and 92.6%

(387) of comparison judges’ responses reported that voir dire took the right amount of time, while

16.9% (50) of pilot judges’ responses and 6.7% (28) of comparison judges’ responses indicated

that voir dire took more time than reasonably necessary.

The pilot also changed how voir dire was conducted by pilot judges. Individualized questioning

practices, including sidebar or individual questioning practices, were common in both groups of

judges (76.7% of pilot judges’ and 71.1% of comparison judges’ responses) and attorneys (71.8%

of pilot attorneys’ responses compared to 72.5% of comparison attorneys’ responses). Pilot judges

reported greater use of individual questioning in open court (21.6% pilot and 11.5% comparison).

Pilot courts also demonstrated increased attorney participation in questioning. From the attorney

perspective, 27.1% of pilot attorneys’ responses under expanded voir dire reported equal

participation between judges and attorneys during questioning, compared to 7.7% in comparison

courtrooms. Similarly, from the juror perspective, 20.4% of pilot jurors’ responses reported joint

questioning by judges and attorneys compared to 10.3% in comparison courts. Attorney-exclusive

questioning remained rare in both pilot and comparison courts (for example, no judges, no

attorneys, and less than 1% of jurors reported attorney-exclusive questioning). Questionnaire use

was seen in 39 voir dire events (22 in pilot and 17 in comparison courts). Case-specific

questionnaires were infrequently used in either court; for instance, 9 pilot judges’ responses

indicated questionnaire use and 5 in comparison courts.

Finally, post-pilot qualitative feedback from participating judges reflected mixed experiences with

expanded voir dire and varying perceptions regarding the usefulness of particular practices.

Several judges indicated they intend to continue certain expanded voir dire practices, and

particularly, individualized questioning of all jurors at the bench regardless of initial responses. At

the same time, concerns regarding attorney engagement, scheduling impacts, and written

questionnaires emerged as recurring themes. Some judges specifically identified attorney

participation as a challenge. Judges also described written questionnaires as burdensome and timeconsuming. Judges noted the need for additional training, implementation guidance, and practical

examples should expanded voir dire be implemented more broadly.

Attorneys’ responses in the post voir dire event surveys generally reflected higher reported

effectiveness under expanded voir dire practices than under existing practices. Among attorneys’

responses under expanded voir dire practices, 76.0% of pilot attorneys’ responses indicated that

the voir dire process adequately assisted in detecting juror bias, compared to 66.6% of comparison

attorneys’ responses. Under expanded practices, attorneys in pilot and comparison courtrooms

differed in their ratings of voir dire as effective in informing the use of peremptory challenges

(83.5% pilot vs. 68.3% comparison) and in identifying jurors for removal for cause (90.5% pilot

vs. 83.8% comparison). Similarly, under expanded practices, 80.2% of pilot attorneys’ responses

agreed that attorney questioning elicited relevant juror information, compared to 73.0% of

comparison attorneys’ responses. Under existing practices, agreement was lower, and “not

applicable” responses were more common than for expanded practices.

With respect to juror satisfaction and public perception of the trial process, jurors reported very

high levels of understanding regarding the purpose of voir dire questions, with 96.8% of pilot

jurors’ responses and 97.0% of comparison jurors’ responses indicating agreement that they

understood the reason why questions were being asked. Similarly, 97.7% of pilot jurors and 97.5%

of comparison jurors reported understanding the roles of the judge and attorneys during voir dire.

Jurors also generally perceived questions as relevant to the case, with 84.2% of pilot jurors and

84.1% of comparison jurors agreeing that questions were relevant.

Regarding juror comfort or perceptions of fairness, a majority of jurors disagreed that questions

were overly probing or personal, including 68.8% of pilot jurors and 69.1% of comparison jurors.

Comfort with attorney questioning was high, with 82.1% of pilot jurors and 85.9% of comparison

jurors reporting they were comfortable with questions asked by attorneys. Comfort with judge

questioning was similarly high across both groups (86.1% pilot vs. 86.4% comparison). Pilot

versus comparison courtroom status, therefore, did not appear to diminish juror comfort or

understanding of the process.

Operational impacts were also examined. Jury yield, juror appearance rates, juror summonses, and

failure-to-appear rates remained generally stable across participating jurisdictions throughout the

study period. Most participating jurisdictions met or exceeded National Center for State Courts

(NCSC) benchmarks for jury yield based on population size. Although some year-to-year variation

occurred across individual jurisdictions, no consistent pattern suggested that the pilot adversely

affected these jury operations measured. Jury and assignment office staff noted some adjustment

period to expanded voir dire, with most issues being resolved during the study period; however

staff in one large jurisdiction had more persistent operational challenges.

Similarly, the evaluation did not identify statewide cost increases associated with the pilot. Juryrelated expenditures fluctuated across jurisdictions and years; however, cost patterns appear to

reflect expected year-to-year variation rather than consistent pilot-related increases or decreases.

Taken together, the findings suggest that expanded voir dire altered the conduct of jury selection

by pilot judges by increasing attorney participation in questioning and individualized juror

engagement. The most substantial measurable effects of the pilot were concentrated in the conduct

and duration of voir dire proceedings, particularly in criminal cases, rather than in overall trial

scheduling, juror perceptions, or jury office operations for most courts.

Data Collected and Results

Judges’ Baseline Survey

A total of 199 judges completed the baseline survey, representing 168 of the 169 28 circuit court

judges eligible to participate and 31 senior judges. Judges who indicated that they had not presided

over a jury trial in the previous 12 months were excluded from the analytic sample. After applying

this exclusion, there were 181 judges included, 91 from comparison locations, 83 from pilot

locations, and 7 senior judges. For participation rates, see Table 1.

Table 1: Judges’ Baseline Survey Participants

Responses

Nonpilot (Location)

Pilot (Location) Sr. Judge

Total Participants

91 (50.2%)

83 (45.9%)

181 (100%)

7 (3.9%)

Survey responses were examined for differences across judge status 29 and court location,

comparing pilot and nonpilot locations. No statistical differences were identified between groups,

and the results are therefore presented in the aggregate to reflect overall baseline perceptions of

the voir dire process for circuit court judges. See Table 2 through Table 8 for baseline survey

results.

Table 2: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results by Location or Judge Status

Type of Voir Dire Conducted (Select All that Apply)

How would you describe the type of voir dire you currently conduct?

Total

Attorney led voir dire of a panel.

2 (0.6%)

Case-specific questionnaires are prepared, distributed and completed by the panel

prior to questioning of jurors

8 (0.9%)

General questionnaires are prepared distributed and completed by the panel prior

to questioning of jurors

5 (1.6%)

Individual juror voir dire at the bench or outside the trial courtroom i.e., a

conference room or another courtroom if available.

(26.7%)

During the judge’s baseline survey collection period, there were seven (7) judicial vacancies pending in

the circuit courts.

Senior judges’ responses were not associated with a pilot or nonpilot location since they often sit in

multiple locations.

Limited opening remarks by counsel before the beginning of voir dire.

2 (0.6%)

Traditional voir dire with additional questions for the intelligent exercise of

peremptory strikes.

104

(32.6%)

Traditional voir dire. Traditional voir dire encompasses mandatory questions to

include questions focused on impartiality bias and prejudice.

119

(37.0%)

Total

326

(100%)

As seen in Table 2, 37% of judges reported using traditional voir dire, and 73% use some form of

expanded voir dire practices that were examined in the present study. The most common expanded

practices were traditional voir dire with additional questions for the intelligent exercise of

peremptory challenges (32.6%) and individual juror voir dire at the bench or outside the trial

courtroom (26.7%).

A majority of judges (68.5%) generally conduct voir dire the same for every trial with some

variation in the process depending on the unique characteristics of the case. An additional 27.6%

of judges noted that manner in which voir dire is conducted in the courtroom is the same for every

trial with limited or no variation. See Table 3.

Table 3: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Manner in which Voir Dire was Conducted

Manner Voir Dire is Conducted

Total

As to the manner in which voir dire is conducted in your courtroom, is the process:

Conducted the same for every trial with limited to no variation in voir dire

processes.

50 (27.6%)

Generally conducted the same for every trial; however, there may be some

variation in the process depending on the unique characteristics of the case.

124 (68.5%)

There is significant variation in the voir dire process for each trial which is

adjusted based on the unique characteristics of the case.

7 (3.9%)

Total

181(100%)

As seen in Table 4, attorney request (22.2%), complexity of the case (21.4%), and legal issues

unique to the case (19.5%) were common reasons for variation in the voir dire process.

Additionally, other factors unique to the case (18.5%) resulted in variation in the voir dire process

for judges.

Table 4: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Variation in Voir Dire Process

Total

Voir Dire Variation (Select All that Apply)

If there is variation in voir dire process, which of the following factors are a reason for variation?

Attorney request.

107 (22.2%)

Complexity of the case.

103 (21.4%)

Legal issues unique to the case.

94 (19.5%)

Not applicable.

20 (4.2%)

Other factors unique to the case.

89 (18.5%)

Severity of the charges (criminal).

69 (14.3%)

Total

482 (100%)

As seen in Table 5, the majority of judges (79.9%) indicated that initial questions are posed by the

judge exclusively. However, judges reported various practices in who formulates the initial

questions, with 42.5% indicating it was the judge primarily (limited input from attorneys), 32.0%

indicating judge and attorney equally, and 22.7% indicating it was primarily the attorney. Less than

3% (5 judges) indicated initial questions are formulated exclusively by the judge. Of those five

judges who indicated they exclusively formulate questions, four noted that they always share the

judge-exclusively formulated questions with counsel prior to being posed and that these questions

are standard.

Table 5: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Initial Questions

Initial Questioning

Total

Who asks the initial questions posed to potential jurors?

Judge and Attorney Equally.

2 (1.1%)

Judge Exclusively.

143 (79.9%)

Judge Primarily.

34 (19.0%)

Initial Questioning

Total

179 (100%)

Who formulates the initial questions that are posed to potential jurors?

Attorney Primarily.

41 (22.7%)

Judge and Attorney Equally.

58 (32.0%)

Judge Exclusively.

5 (2.8%)

Judge Primarily (limited input from

attorneys).

76 (42.5%)

Total

181 (100%)

Are the initial questions formulated by the judge shared with counsel prior to being posed to

potential jurors? (Answered: Judge Exclusively)

Always.

4 (80.0%)

Sometimes.

1 (20.0%)

Total

5 (100%)

Are the initial questions formulated by the judge standardized or do they vary?

(Answered: Judge Exclusively)

Standardized.

4(80.0%)

Vary.

1(20.0%)

Total

5 (100%)

Which of the following factors are reasons the initial questions might vary? (Select all that

apply)

(Answered: Vary)

Attorney request.

1 (33.3%)

Complexity of the case.

1 (33.3%)

Severity of the charges (criminal).

1 (33.3%)

Initial Questioning

Total

1 (100.0%)

As to the initial questions, nearly all judges (98.9%) noted that attorneys submit questions for

judicial review/approval either verbally or in writing prior to being posed to potential jurors. Only

two judges noted that the specific questions are not reviewed by the judge prior to voir dire, but

they do submit the topic for review. Further, a majority of judges (60.8%) stated that judicial review

of questions/topics are conducted prior to the date of the voir dire, with other judges noting that

judicial review is conducted the day of the voir dire. All judges noted that no limit is set for the

number of questions permitted for counsel to submit for review (See Table 6).

Table 6: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Judicial Review

Level of Judicial Review

Total

What is the level of judicial review of questions/topics prior to being posed to potential

jurors?

Attorneys submit questions for judicial review/approval either verbally or

in writing.

174 (98.9%)

Attorneys submit topics for judicial review/approval; however, the specific

questions are not reviewed by the judge prior to voir dire.

2 (1.1%)

Total

176 (100%)

When does judicial review of those questions/topics occur?

Prior to the date that voir dire is conducted.

107 (60.8%)

The day that voir dire is conducted.

69 (39.2%)

Total

175 (100.0%)

How many questions are counsel permitted to submit for review?

Judge sets an equal number of questions that each party is permitted to

submit, and the number of questions does not vary by case type or other

characteristics of the case.

0 (0.0%)

Level of Judicial Review

Total

Judge sets a specific number of questions that each party is permitted to

submit, and the number of questions varies by the unique characteristics of

each case

0 (0.0%)

No limit is set - each party submits all questions requested.

176 (100.0%)

Total

176 (100%)

As shown in Table 7, nearly all judges (98.3%) noted that once initial questions have been posed

to potential jurors, follow-up questions are posed or permitted. Only three judges indicated that

follow-up questions are not permitted. Regarding who formulates and then asks follow-up

questions, the majority of judges indicated at least some role for attorneys. As to who formulates

the follow-up questions asked of potential jurors, judges noted that it is judges and attorneys

equally (45.5%) as well as judges primarily with limited input from attorneys (43.2%). Then, as to

who asks the follow-up question, judges noted that it is judges primarily (48.9%) or judges and

attorneys equally (35.4%). Only three judges noted that judges exclusively formulate follow-up

questions that are asked of potential jurors. Of these three judges, two judges noted that sometimes

follow-up questions are shared with counsel before being posed to potential jurors.

Just over half of all judges (52.5%) noted that there is no review of follow-up questions conducted

by the judge prior to these questions being posed by attorneys, with nearly a quarter of judges

(22.9%) indicating that they place limitations as to the types and manner of follow-up questions at

the onset, with no specific review of questions prior to them being posed by attorneys and another

2.3% review topics submitted by attorneys but not the specific questions. Nearly a quarter (22.3%)

stated that attorneys submit follow-up questions for judicial review/approval either verbally or in

writing prior to being posed. (See Table 7).

Table 7: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Follow-Up Questions

Follow-Up Questions

Total

Once initial questions have been posed to potential jurors, are follow-up questions posed or

permitted?

No.

3 (1.7%)

Yes.

177 (98.3%)

Total

181 (100%)

Who asks follow-up questions of the potential jurors?

Attorney Primarily.

10 (5.6%)

Judge and Attorney Equally.

63 (35.4%)

Judge Exclusively.

18 (10.1%)

Judge Primarily.

87 (48.9%)

Total

178 (100%)

Who formulates the follow-up questions that are asked of potential jurors?

Attorney Primarily.

17 (9.6%)

Judge and Attorneys Equally.

81 (45.5%)

Judge Exclusively.

3 (1.7%)

Judge Primarily (limited input from attorneys).

77 (43.2%)

Total

178 (100%)

Are follow-up questions formulated by the judge shared with counsel prior to being posed to

potential jurors? (Answered: Judge Exclusively)

Never

1 (33.3%)

Sometimes.

2 (66.7%)

Total

3 (100.0%)

Are follow-up questions formulated by the Judge (Answered: Judge Exclusively)

Vary.

3 (100.0%)

Total

3 (100%)

Which of the following factors are reasons the follow-up questions might vary? (Select all that

apply) (Answered: Vary)

Juror response.

2 (66.7%)

Other factors unique to the case.

1 (33.3%)

Total

3 (100%)

When follow-up questions are formulated and posed by the attorneys, what is the level of

judicial review prior to being posed to potential jurors?

Attorneys submit follow-up questions for judicial review/approval either

verbally or in writing prior to being posed.

39 (22.3%)

Attorneys submit topics for judicial review/approval; however, the specific

follow-up questions are not reviewed by the judge prior to being posed by

attorneys.

4 (2.3%)

Limitations as to types and manner of follow-up questions are placed at the

onset by the judge; however, no specific review of questions is conducted prior

to being posed by attorneys.

40 (22.9%)

No review of follow-up questions is conducted by the judge prior to follow-up

questions being posed by attorneys.

92 (52.5%)

Total

175 (100%)

The majority of judges reported that the current voir dire process is extremely effective in

identifying jurors to remove for cause (66.7%), and an additional 30.0% reported it was moderately

effective. In identifying jurors for informing the use of peremptory challenges, 36.7% reported the

current process is extremely effective and majority reported it is moderately effective (52.2%). The

majority of judges (80.0%) noted that voir dire currently takes the correct and reasonably necessary

amount of time to conduct. Additionally, nearly all judges (90.0%) stated that the current voir dire

process adequately assists in their ability to detect juror bias. Only four judges noted that the

current voir dire process does not assist in detecting juror bias (See Table 8).

Table 8: Judges’ Baseline Survey Results: Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Current Voir Dire

Process

Efficiency and Effectiveness of Current Voir Dire

Process

Total

In your opinion, voir dire currently takes:

More time than is reasonably necessary.

36 (20.0%)

The correct and reasonably necessary amount of time.

144 (80.0%)

Less time than is reasonably necessary.

0 (0.0%)

Total

180 (100.0%)

Does the current voir dire process adequately assist in your ability to detect juror bias?

No.

4 (2.2%)

Unsure.

14 (7.8%)

Yes.

162 (90.0%)

Total

180 (100.0%)

How effective is the current voir dire process for - Identifying jurors to remove for cause?

Extremely Effective

120 (66.7%)

Moderately Effective

54 (30.0%)

Neither Effective nor Ineffective

5 (2.8%)

Slightly Ineffective

1 (0.6%)

Total

180 (100.0%)

How effective is the current voir dire process for - Identifying jurors for informing the use of

peremptory challenges?

Extremely Effective

66 (36.7%)

Moderately Effective

94 (52.2%)

Neither Effective nor Ineffective

14 (7.8%)

Slightly Ineffective

6 (3.3%)

Total

180 (100.0%)

Voir Dire Type Classification

To evaluate the impact of the voir dire pilot on jury trial length, voir dire length, strikes for cause

used, and peremptory challenges, a classification system was developed to identify each voir dire

event as using either existing or expanded voir dire practices. The data collection surveys did not

ask respondents to identify which specific voir dire type was used; rather, the survey instruments

asked respondents to provide information regarding how voir dire was conducted. Voir dire events

were designated as using “expanded practices” where a survey response indicated the use of at

least one of the five expanded voir dire techniques. In the absence of such indications, responses

were classified as using “existing practices.” If little or no information was provided to classify

voir dire events, they were deemed “not classified.” See Table 9 for further explanation of how

voir dire events were categorized based on responses to survey questions.

Table 9: Categorization of Existing and Expanded Voir Dire

Voir Dire Type

Existing Practices

Traditional judge-led voir

dire with additional

questions

(Expanded)

Individual juror voir dire

at the bench or outside the

trial courtroom

(Expanded)

Who asked

questions of the

potential jurors

during voir dire?

Additional Criteria

Survey Comments

Who was involved

in the voir dire

process?

How was voir

dire

conducted?

Judge exclusively or

judge primarily

standardized

OR casespecific

written

questionnaire

completed by

potential

jurors

Judge exclusively

Judge primarily OR

judge and

attorney/selfrepresented party

equally OR and

attorney/selfrepresented party

primarily

standardized

OR casespecific

written

questionnaire

completed by

potential

jurors

Judge primarily

OR judge and

attorney/selfrepresented party

equally OR and

attorney/selfrepresented party

primarily

Judge primarily OR

judge and

attorney/selfrepresented party

equally OR and

attorney/self-

Oral questions

posed to

individual

potential

jurors at a

sidebar or

other location

Includes responses

that do not meet

criteria of one of

the five expanded

voir dire types

Survey Comments

Includes voir dire

events where all

potential jurors

regardless of

whether they

responded

Voir Dire Type

Who was involved

in the voir dire

process?

How was voir

dire

conducted?

Who asked

questions of the

potential jurors

during voir dire?

represented party

primarily

Attorney-led voir dire

(Expanded)

General and/or casespecific questionnaires

(Expanded)

affirmatively to

any general voir

dire questions

were questioned at

the bench or other

sidebar location

Judge and

attorney/selfrepresented party

equally OR and

attorney/selfrepresented party

primarily

Judge primarily OR

judge and

attorney/selfrepresented party

equally OR and

attorney/selfrepresented party

primarily

Additional Criteria

Attorney/selfrepresented party

exclusively OR

attorney/selfrepresented party

primarily

Standardized

OR casespecific

written

questionnaire

completed by

potential

jurors

Limited opening remarks

Survey Comments

(Expanded)

Responses from the judge’s survey and the attorney’s survey were systematically reviewed and

categorized into either existing or expanded voir dire practices using the criteria described in Table

9. Subsequently, classifications were compared to assess agreement among all responding

attorneys and between attorneys and judges for each voir dire event. The distribution of agreement

among respondents is summarized in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Voir Dire Events by Agreement Among Survey Respondents

Voir Dire Events

All Responses Agree on Voir Dire Type

304

34%

Judge Responded, No Attorneys Responded

370

42%

Attorneys Agree, Judge Disagrees

11%

Attorneys Disagree, Judge Responded

Attorneys Agree, No Judge Responded

Attorneys Disagree, No Judge Responded

<1%

No Response from Judge or Attorneys

Total

887

100%

To resolve discrepancies in classification, the following hierarchical approach was applied:

•

Assign voir dire type where all respondents agreed.

Assign voir dire type based on the judge’s classification when a judge’s response was

available, but no attorney response was available.

Assign voir dire type based on the judge’s classification when attorneys disagreed or when

the judge’s response differed from the attorneys’ responses.

Assign voir dire type based on the attorneys’ classification when attorneys agreed, and no

judge’s response was available.

Exclude voir dire events where no judge responded and attorneys disagreed, as well as

events with no responses from either judges or attorneys.

Using this hierarchy, each voir dire event was assigned a voir dire type as shown in Table 11 below.

These classifications form the basis for subsequent analyses where existing practices and expanded

practices are compared.

Table 11: Voir Dire Events, by Voir Dire Type

Voir Dire Events

Existing Voir Dire

141

15.9%

Expanded Voir Dire

731

82.4%

Not Classified

1.7%

Total

887

100.0%

Reflective of the findings in the judges’ baseline survey, and due to the self-driven nature of the

pilot, both pilot and comparison courtrooms varied in how voir dire was conducted from case to

case. Survey responses from judges and attorneys (findings described later in this report) indicated

that some pilot courtrooms continued to use non-expanded voir dire practices while some

comparison courtrooms used expanded voir dire practices, as they had before the study period.

These variations in practice may reflect differences in case characteristics, attorney preferences,

and judicial discretion. Accordingly, analyses address both courtroom and practice where possible.

Strike and Time Data

The length of voir dire and the jury trial for each voir dire event was tracked through a combination

of a standardized data collection form, spreadsheets compiled by the local courts and, in some

cases, reviewing local court recordings. Data related to the number of strikes for cause used and

the number of peremptory challenges used by each party was collected from participating courts

through a standardized data collection instrument completed by court staff. Table 12 below

contains more details regarding the strike data collection response rate.

Table 12: Strike Data Collection Response Rates, by Court and Case Type

Pilot

Voir

Dire

Events

315

Data

Received

277

Response

Rate

88%

Voir

Dire

Events

572

Allegany

100%

Anne Arundel

Baltimore City

141

Carroll

Cecil

Comparison

Total

Data

Received

485

Response

Rate

85%

Voir

Dire

Events

887

100%

98%

128

91%

332

299

90%

473

427

90%

100%

93%

94%

Charles

100%

Montgomery

70%

41%

169

55%

Worcester

100%

Civil

89%

113

79%

175

144

82%

Criminal

253

222

88%

459

396

86%

712

618

87%

Data

Received

762

Response

Rate

86%

Circuit Court

Case Type

Voir Dire Type Impact on Voir Dire Length. Voir dire length was measured by calculating the

number of minutes spent in the courtroom for each case and summing across all days and then

converting to hours. Table 13 shows the mean and median voir dire length for existing and

expanded practices by case category. 30

Table 13: Voir Dire Length in Hours by Voir Dire Type

Civil

Criminal

Total

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

106

549

137

134

686

Mean

3.1

3.7

1.6

2.2

2.8

3.4

Median

2.2

2.6

1.6

1.7

1.9

2.4

The average duration of voir dire was longer in expanded voir dire events (3.4 hours) than in

existing voir dire events (2.8 hours). A similar trend was observed in both criminal cases (3.7 hours

in expanded voir dire events vs. 3.1 hours in existing voir dire events) and civil cases (2.2 hours in

expanded voir dire events and 1.6 hours in existing voir dire events).

The median length of voir dire in expanded voir dire events was longer at 2.4 hours compared to

1.9 hours for voir dire in existing voir dire events. The difference in voir dire length was larger in

criminal cases (median 2.6 hours for expanded voir dire practices compared to 2.2 hours for

existing voir dire practices) than in civil cases where voir dire length in expanded voir dire events

was similar to existing voir dire practices (1.7 hours and 1.6 hours, respectively).

Court Type (Pilot vs. Comparison) Impact on Voir Dire Length. The average duration of voir

dire, measured in hours, was statistically significantly longer in pilot courts (3.8 hours) than in

comparison courts (3.0 hours). 31 The difference appears to be concentrated in criminal cases,

where the average length of voir dire was 4.3 hours in pilot courts compared to 3.2 hours in

Both the mean and median values provide information about what is typical for voir dire length; the mean

reflects the average value, while the median reflects the middle value. Because averages can be affected by

unusually high or low values, presenting both provides additional context in understanding typical voir dire

times.

Mann-Whitney U = 92449.00, p < 0.001.

comparison courts. 32 For civil cases, there was no difference in average length of voir dire (2.1

hours in both categories).

The median length of voir dire in pilot courts was also longer in criminal cases, with a median of

3.0 hours in pilot courts compared to 2.3 hours in comparison courts. There were minimal

differences in the median for civil cases (1.7 hours in pilot courts vs. 1.6 hours in comparison

courts). See Table 14.

Table 14: Voir Dire Length in Hours by Court Type

Criminal

Civil

Total

Comparison Pilot

426

240

107

533

302

Mean

3.2

4.3

2.1

3.0

3.8

Median

2.3

3.0

1.6

1.7

2.0

2.6

Voir Dire Type Impact on Strikes. The average number of strikes for cause used was greater in

expanded voir dire events (16.9 strikes used) compared to existing voir dire events (12.3 strikes

used). In criminal cases, the average number of strikes used in expanded voir dire events was 19.2

compared to 13.9 in existing voir dire events.

The median number of strikes for cause used was greater in expanded voir dire events than under

existing voir dire practices (12.0 and 8.0, respectively). In criminal cases, the median number of

strikes for cause was 14.0 in expanded practices and 11.0 strikes for cause used in existing voir

dire practices. The median number of strikes for cause used was five for both expanded and

existing voir dire practices in civil cases. See Table 15.

Table 15: Strikes for Cause Used by Voir Dire Type

Criminal

Civil

Total

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

514

117

115

631

Mean

13.9

19.2

5.2

6.9

12.3

16.9

Mann-Whitney U = 59593.000, p < 0.001.

Median

11.0

14.0

5.0

8.0

12.0

Peremptory Challenges by Attorney Type. The average number of peremptory challenges by

the state’s attorney/plaintiff was 4.0 in expanded practice voir dire events and 3.9 in existing

practice voir dire events. For criminal cases, expanded practice voir dire events averaged 3.8

peremptory challenges used compared to 3.9 peremptory challenges used in existing practice voir

dire events by the state’s attorney. In civil cases, expanded practice voir dire events averaged a

greater number of peremptory challenges than existing practice voir dire events (4.5 peremptory

challenges used and 3.8 peremptory challenges used by plaintiff, respectively). The average

number of peremptory challenges by the defense/respondent was greater in expanded practice voir

dire events (6.5 peremptory challenges) compared to existing practice voir dire events (6.1

peremptory challenges). This trend continues in civil cases where expanded practice voir dire

events averaged 4.5 peremptory challenges used by the respondent compared to 3.9 peremptory

challenges used in existing voir dire events. In criminal cases, the average number of peremptory

challenges used by the defense was 6.9 in expanded practice voir dire events and 6.6 in existing

practice voir dire events. See Table 16 and Table 17.

The median number of peremptory challenges used by the plaintiff/state’s attorney was 4.0 for

both existing practice and expanded practice voir dire events. The median was also 4.0 peremptory

challenges used by the state’s attorney for both existing practice and expanded practice voir dire

events in criminal cases; however, civil cases showed a greater median number of peremptory

challenges used by the plaintiff in expanded practice voir dire events than in existing practice voir

dire events (5.0 peremptory challenges and 4.0 peremptory challenges, respectively). The median

number of peremptory challenges used by the defense/respondent was slightly greater in expanded

practice voir dire events (4.5 peremptory challenges used) compared to existing practice voir dire

events (4 peremptory challenges used). Criminal cases did not show a difference in median

peremptory challenges used by the defense; however, civil cases in expanded practice voir dire

events had a median of five peremptory challenges used by the respondent compared to four in

existing practice voir dire events. See Table 16 and Table 17.

Table 16: Peremptory Challenges Used by State’s Attorney/Plaintiff by Voir Dire Type

Civil

Criminal

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

Mean

Median

Existing

Total

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

Expanded

Practices

518

119

116

637

3.9

3.8

4.5

3.9

4.0

5.0

4.0

Table 17: Peremptory Challenges Used by Defense/Respondent by Voir Dire Type

Criminal

Existing

Civil

Practices

Expanded

Practices

Mean

Median

Existing

Total

Existing

Practices

Expanded

Practices

Expanded

Practices

517

119

116

636

6.6

6.9

3.9

4.5

6.1

6.5

4.0

5.0

4.0

4.5

Table 18: Strikes for Cause Used by Court Type

Criminal

Civil

Total

Comparison Pilot

Comparison

Pilot

391

219

477

274

Mean

16.6

21.6

7.3

5.3

14.9

18.3

Median

12.0

16.0

5.0

11.0

As seen in Table 18, the average number of strikes for cause used was greater in pilot courts (18.3

strikes used) compared to comparison courts (14.9 strikes used); however, the median was the

same for both groups (11 strikes for cause used). The difference appears to be concentrated in

criminal cases, where the average number of strikes used in pilot courts was 21.6 compared to 16.6

in comparison courts. 33 In addition, the median number of strikes for cause used was greater in

pilot courts than in comparison courts (16.0 and 12.0, respectively). For civil cases, the average

number of strikes for cause used was greater in comparison courts than pilot courts (7.3 and 5.3,

respectively). The median did not differ between the two groups for civil cases.

Table 19: Peremptory Challenges Used by State’s Attorney/Plaintiff by Court Type

Criminal

Civil

Total

Comparison

Pilot

Comparison

Pilot

Comparison Pilot

392

222

481

277

Mean

3.7

4.1

4.3

4.6

3.8

4.2

Median

4.0

5.0

4.0

As seen in Table 20, the average number of peremptory challenges used by the state’s

attorney/plaintiff was statistically significantly greater in pilot courts (4.2 peremptory challenges

used) compared to comparison courts (3.8 peremptory strikes used); however, the median was the

same for both groups (4.0 peremptory challenges used). 34 The median number of peremptory

challenges used by the state’s attorney/plaintiff was greater in pilot courts (5.0 peremptory

challenges used) than in comparison courts (4.0 peremptory challenges used) in civil cases. The

observed differences in the numbers of peremptory challenges used for criminal and civil cases

are also statistically significant. 35

Mann-Whitney U = 48747.000, p = 0.004.

Mann Whitney U = 74013.500, p = 0.009.

Mann Whitney criminal: U = 48049.000, p = 0.029; civil: U = 3015.000, p = 0.010.

Table 20: Peremptory Challenges Used by Defense/Respondent

Criminal

Civil

Total

Comparison Pilot

Comparison

Pilot

391

222

480

277

Mean

6.5

7.5

4.2

4.6

6.1

6.9

Median

4.0

6.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

The average number of peremptory challenges used by the defense/respondent was statistically

significantly greater in pilot courts (6.9 peremptory challenges used) compared to comparison

courts (6.1 peremptory challenges used). 36 The median was greater in pilot courts (5.0 peremptory

challenges used) compared to comparison courts (4.0 peremptory challenges used). These trends

are observed regardless of case type with criminal and civil cases in pilot courts having a greater

number of peremptory challenges used than in comparison courts. 37

Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors

During the expanded voir dire pilot program, pilot judges met monthly to discuss their experiences

with expanded voir dire. One expanded voir dire process that was discussed during these meetings

was bringing all potential jurors to the bench or another sidebar location for questioning regardless

of whether the potential jurors answered affirmatively to any of the initial voir dire questions.

Based on their experiences in the courtroom with this type of expanded voir dire, judges reported

that more potential jurors were stricken for cause as this led to the identification of individuals

who would otherwise have been qualified to serve or warranted accommodation (for example,

non-English speakers or contentious potential jurors). Judges also noted that this type of expanded

voir dire could lengthen the time for voir dire depending on questions asked by attorneys and detail

of responses provided by potential jurors.

On October 8, 2025, as a result of the above feedback from the pilot judges, a question was added

to the Judge’s Survey to identify which groups of jurors were brought to the bench or a sidebar for

additional questioning:

•

all potential jurors regardless of whether they responded affirmatively to any

general voir dire questions.

only potential jurors who responded affirmatively to one or more general voir

dire questions.

Mann Whitney U = 73507.500, p = 0.014.

Mann Whitney criminal: U = 47779.000, p = 0.036; civil: U = 3021.000, p = 0.009.

•

other. This category primarily includes all potential jurors who responded

affirmatively, plus some but not all potential jurors who did not respond

affirmatively to general voir dire questions.

This analysis includes voir dire events where the Judge’s Survey was submitted on or after October

8, 2025. Table 21 below provides an overview of the responses to the added question about bench

or sidebar questioning of potential jurors.

Table 21: Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors, by Court Location, Case Type,

Judge Type, and Voir Dire Type

Only potential

jurors who

responded

affirmatively

All potential

jurors

114

71%

21%

160

100%

Allegany County

Anne Arundel

County

Baltimore City

68%

38%

67%

62%

Carroll County

Cecil County

Charles County

15%

12%

Montgomery County

47%

25%

14%

Worcester County

Civil

16%

18%

17%

16%

Criminal

84%

82%

83%

134

84%

Pilot

26%

85%

58%

41%

Comparison

74%

15%

42%

59%

Existing Practices

Expanded Practices

109

96%

100%

155

97%

Voir Dire Events

Other

Total

Responses

Circuit Court

Case Type

Judge Type

Voir Dire Type

Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors Impact on Voir Dire Length. Voir dire

events where all potential jurors were questioned at the bench or in a sidebar took longer on

average (5.1 hours) than voir dire events where only potential jurors who responded to initial

questions or other (2.7 hours and 2.9 hours, respectively). This trend was observed in both civil

and criminal cases. In criminal cases, the mean and median voir dire length for voir dire events

where all potential jurors were questioned at the bench or in a sidebar was approximately twice as

long as for events where only potential jurors who responded affirmatively were questioned at the

bench or in a sidebar or other. (See Table 22).

Table 22: Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors by Voir Dire Length in Hours

Criminal

Civil

Total

Mean Median

Only potential

jurors who

responded

affirmatively

2.8

1.9

2.0

1.5

107

2.7

1.9

All potential

jurors

5.6

3.9

2.8

2.2

5.1

3.1

Other

2.8

1.8

3.6

2.9

2.5

Mean Median

Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors Impact on Strikes. The average number of

strikes for cause used was greater in voir dire events where all potential jurors were questioned at

the bench or in a sidebar (29.9 strikes used) compared to voir dire events where only potential

jurors who responded to initial questions (13.7 strikes used) or other (18.3 strikes). This trend was

observed in both criminal and civil cases.

The median number of strikes for cause used was greater in voir dire events where all potential

jurors were questioned at the bench or in a sidebar (23.0 strikes used) compared to voir dire events

where only potential jurors who responded to initial questions (11.0 strikes used) or other (13.5

strikes). This trend was observed in both criminal and civil cases. (See Table 23).

Table 23: Strikes for Cause Used by Bench or Sidebar Questioning

Criminal

Civil

Total

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Only potential jurors

who responded

affirmatively

15.1

11.5

5.9

5.0

101

13.7

11.0

All potential jurors

33.1

29.5

10.7

12.0

29.9

23.0

Other

17.3

12.5

22.5

18.3

13.5

Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors Impact on Peremptory Challenges—

Attorney/Plaintiff. The average and median number of peremptory strikes used by the state’s

attorney/plaintiff in voir dire events differed where all potential jurors were questioned at the bench

or sidebar compared to the other categories. Criminal cases saw a greater number of peremptory

challenges in voir dire events where all potential jurors were questioned at the bench or sidebar

compared to events where only potential jurors who responded affirmatively were questioned at

the bench or sidebar and other (5.5 peremptory challenges compared to 3.8 peremptory challenges

and 3.6 peremptory challenges, respectively). The median number of peremptory challenges varied

from 3.5 to 5.0 peremptory challenges across categories with the number of peremptory challenges

for voir dire events where all potential jurors were questioned at the bench or sidebar generally

being greater than the median for the other categories. (See Table 24).

Table 24: Peremptory Challenges Used by State’s Attorney/Plaintiff by Bench or Sidebar

Questioning

Criminal

Civil

Total

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Only potential jurors

who responded

affirmatively

3.8

4.0

4.5

5.0

103

3.9

4.0

All potential jurors

5.5

4.5

5.0

5.4

5.0

Other

3.6

3.5

4.0

3.7

4.0

Bench or Sidebar Questioning of Potential Jurors Impact on Peremptory Challenges—

Defense/Respondent. The average number of peremptory challenges used by the

defense/respondent was greater in voir dire events where all potential jurors were questioned at

the bench or sidebar (9.3 peremptory challenges used) compared to events where only potential

jurors who responded affirmatively were questioned at the bench or sidebar (5.7 peremptory

challenges used) or other (5.1 peremptory challenges used). The difference appears to be

concentrated in criminal cases where the average number of peremptory challenges used was 10.0

in voir dire events where all potential jurors were questioned at the bench or sidebar compared to

6.0 peremptory challenges used in events where only potential jurors who responded to initial voir

dire questions were questioned at the bench or sidebar and 5.4 peremptory challenges for other.

The median number of peremptory challenges used by the defense/respondent was greater in voir

dire events where all potential jurors were questioned at the bench or sidebar (7.0 peremptory

challenges used) compared to 4.0 peremptory challenges used in each of the other categories. This

trend was also observed in criminal cases where the median number of peremptory challenges used

was 8.5 in voir dire events where all potential jurors were questioned at the bench or sidebar

compared to 4.0 peremptory challenges used in each of the other categories. (See Table 25).

Table 25: Peremptory Challenges Used by Defense/Respondent

Criminal

Civil

Total

Mean Median

Only potential jurors

who responded

affirmatively

6.0

4.0

4.3

5.0

102

5.7

4.0

All potential jurors

10.0

8.5

5.0

9.3

7.0

Other

5.4

4.0

5.1

4.0

Questionnaire Use

During the pilot study, some judges opted to use written questionnaires in addition to standard

questioning of potential jurors. Questionnaires either contained standardized voir dire questions

aimed at identifying potential juror bias regardless of any unique characteristics of a case or casespecific questionnaires containing questions that more directly related to the specific

characteristics of the case. Table 26 provides an overview of the responses to the added question

about bench or sidebar questioning of potential jurors.

Table 26: Questionnaire Use, by Court Location, Case Type and Category, Judge Type, and Voir

Dire Type

Questionnaire

Use Indicated

Questionnaire

Use Not

Indicated

848

96%

887

100%

Allegany County

Anne Arundel County

Baltimore City

28%

462

54%

473

53%

Carroll County

10%

Cecil County

15%

Charles County

10%

Montgomery County

26%

159

19%

169

19%

Worcester County

Civil

26%

165

19%

175

20%

Criminal

74%

683

81%

712

80%

Felony - Person

59%

319

47%

336

47%

Felony - Property

Felony - Drug

Felony - Weapon

Felony - Other

<1%

Misdemeanor - Person

17%

13%

Misdemeanor - Property

Misdemeanor - Weapon

Misdemeanor - Motor Vehicle

Misdemeanor - Other

Appeal from District Court

Other

Data Not Available

Voir Dire Events

Total

Circuit Court

Case Type

Case Category (Criminal)

Questionnaire

Use Indicated

Questionnaire

Use Not

Indicated

Pilot

56%

293

35%

315

36%

Comparison

44%

555

65%

572

64%

Existing Practices

141

17%

141

16%

Expanded Practices

100%

692

82%

731

82%

Not Classified

Total

Judge Type

Voir Dire Type

Impact of Questionnaire Use on Voir Dire Length. Voir dire events where a questionnaire was

used took longer on average (6.0 hours) than voir dire events where there was no indication that a

questionnaire was used (3.2 hours). The difference was concentrated in criminal cases with voir

dire events where a questionnaire was used averaging longer than voir dire events where there was

no indication a questionnaire was used (7.1 hours and 3.4 hours, respectively). A similar trend was

observed in the median length of time with criminal voir dire events where a questionnaire was

used taking longer than voir dire events where there was no indication that a questionnaire was

used (4.5 hours and 2.5 hours, respectively). (See Table 27).

Table 27: Questionnaire Use by Voir Dire Length in Hours

Criminal

Civil

Total

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Questionnaire Use

Indicated

7.1

4.5

2.4

1.9

6.0

3.3

Questionnaire Use

Not Indicated

639

3.4

2.5

160

2.1

1.6

799

3.2

2.2

Impact of Questionnaire Use on Strikes and Peremptory Challenges. The average number of

strikes for cause used was greater in voir dire events where a questionnaire was used than voir dire

events where there was no indication that a questionnaire was used (26.1 strikes used and 15.7

strikes used, respectively). The median number of strikes for cause used was greater in voir dire

events where a questionnaire was used (13.0 strikes used) than in voir dire events where there was

no indication that a questionnaire was used (11.0 strikes used).

These trends were observed in criminal cases with 31.5 strikes for cause used on average in voir

dire events where a questionnaire used compared to 17.8 strikes for cause used on average in voir

dire events where there was no indication that a questionnaire was used. Civil cases showed a

different trend with the average number of strikes for cause greater in voir dire events in which

there was no indication that a questionnaire was used than in voir dire events using a questionnaire

(6.6 strikes used and 5.1 strikes used, respectively). The median number of strikes for cause used

was 5.0 regardless of whether a questionnaire was used. (See Table 28).

Table 28: Questionnaire Use by Strikes for Cause Used

Criminal

Civil

Total

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Questionnaire Use

Indicated

31.5

21.0

5.1

5.0

26.1

13.0

Questionnaire Use

Not Indicated

583

17.8

13.0

134

6.6

5.0

717

15.7

11.0

The average number of peremptory challenges used by the state’s attorney/plaintiff was greater in

voir dire events where a questionnaire was used (4.4 peremptory challenges used) compared to

events where there was no indication that a questionnaire was used (3.9 peremptory challenges

used). Both civil and criminal cases saw a similar trend with the observed difference being larger

in criminal cases than in civil cases. For criminal cases, the average number of peremptory

challenges used was 4.4 in voir dire events where a questionnaire was used compared to 3.8

peremptory challenges used in events where there was no indication that a questionnaire was used.

In civil cases, the median number of peremptory challenges used by the state’s attorney/plaintiff

was greater in voir dire events where a questionnaire was used compared to voir dire events where

there was no indication that a questionnaire was used (5.0 and 4.0 peremptory challenges used,

respectively). In criminal cases, the median number of peremptory challenges used was 4.0

regardless of whether a questionnaire was used. (See Table 29).

Table 29: Questionnaire Use by Peremptory Challenges Used for State’s Attorney/Plaintiff

Criminal

Civil

Total

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Questionnaire Use

Indicated

4.4

4.0

4.6

5.0

4.4

4.0

Questionnaire Use

Not Indicated

587

3.8

4.0

137

4.4

4.0

724

3.9

4.0

The average number of peremptory challenges used by the defense/respondent was greater in voir

dire events where a questionnaire was used (7.6) compared to events where there was no indication

that a questionnaire was used (6.3). This pattern was primarily observed in criminal cases where

8.4 peremptory challenges were used on average in voir dire events where a questionnaire was

used compared to 6.8 peremptory challenges used on average in voir dire events where there was

no indication that a questionnaire was used. In civil cases, the average number of peremptory

challenges used was similar across groups (4.3 in events using a questionnaire and 4.4 in events

without indication of questionnaire use).

Median values reflected a similar pattern, overall, with a median of 6.5 peremptory challenges

used in voir dire events where a questionnaire was used compared to 4.0 in events where there was

no indication that a questionnaire was used. In criminal cases, the median number of peremptory

challenges used was 9.0 in events involving questionnaire use and 4.0 in events without

questionnaire use. (See Table 30).

Table 30: Peremptory Challenges Used by Defense/Respondent

Criminal

Civil

Total

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Questionnaire Use

Indicated

8.4

9.0

4.3

5.0

7.6

6.5

Questionnaire Use Not

Indicated

586

6.8

4.0

137

4.4

4.0

723

6.3

4.0

Experiences of Judges Under Voir Dire Pilot

The focus of this study was voir dire events occurring between January 1, 2025, and December 31,

2025, in the Circuit Courts for Allegany County, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Carroll

County, Cecil County, Charles County, Montgomery County, and Worcester County. A voir dire

event was defined as an instance where voir dire questioning was completed even if the case did

not ultimately go to trial. Each instance of voir dire was counted as a separate event such that if a

case went through voir dire, proceeded to trial where a mistrial was declared and at a future date

completed voir dire again, two separate voir dire events were tracked and analyzed.

Voir dire events were identified through the monitoring of jury trial hearings scheduled each day

courts were in operation. Cases identified were researched in the judiciary’s case management

system and included in the analysis if it could be verified that voir dire occurred through notation

on the hearing sheet. The hearing sheet also served as the source for identifying the judge

overseeing voir dire as well as the attorneys participating in the voir dire process.

During the study timeframe, there were 887 voir dire events. Of these events, 315 voir dire events

occurred in pilot courtrooms and 572 occurred in comparison courtrooms. Table 31 below provides

more detail regarding the voir dire events included in this analysis.

Table 31: Voir Dire Event Characteristics

Pilot

Voir Dire Events

Court Location

Allegany County Circuit

Anne Arundel County

Circuit

Baltimore City Circuit

Carroll County Circuit Court

Cecil County Circuit

Charles County Circuit

Montgomery County Circuit

Worcester County Circuit

Judge Status

Active

Senior

Case Type

Civil

Criminal

Comparison

Total

315

36%

572

64%

887

100%

141

45%

26%

332

58%

15%

473

169

53%

19%

315

100%

474

83%

17%

789

89%

11%

253

20%

80%

113

459

20%

80%

175

712

20%

80%

Survey of Judges

Judges were asked to submit a survey response for each voir dire event. The overall Judge Survey

response rate was 96%. The pilot judges’ response rate was 98% and the comparison judges’

response rate was 95%. Table 32 below contains more details regarding the judge survey response

rate.

Table 32: Judge’s Survey Response Rate, by Court Location, Judge Status and Case Type

Pilot

Comparison

Surveys Response Surveys Response

Received

Rate

Received

Rate

Total

Surveys

Received

Response

Rate

310

98%

541

95%

851

96%

Allegany County

100%

Anne Arundel County

100%

Baltimore City

141

100%

332

100%

473

100%

Carroll County

100%

72%

86%

Cecil County

89%

100%

97%

Charles County

93%

100%

97%

Montgomery County

98%

72%

143

85%

Worcester County

100%

Active

310

98%

458

97%

768

97%

Senior

n/a

85%

Civil

97%

102

90%

162

93%

Criminal

250

99%

439

96%

689

97%

Court Location

Judge Status

Case Category

As described in the “Voir Dire Type Classification” section, each survey response was

systematically reviewed and categorized according to voir dire type—either existing or expanded

practices—based on responses to questions regarding the participants involved in the voir dire

process, the individuals who posed questions during voir dire, the method in which voir dire was

conducted, and qualitative comments provided by respondents. In this section, the voir dire type

attributed to each judge’s survey reflects the presiding judge’s characterization of the voir dire

process and may differ from the perceptions of attorneys and jurors involved in the same voir dire

event. Table 33 contains more detail regarding voir dire type as identified by judge survey

responses.

Table 33: Voir Dire Type Used as Indicated by Judge

Expanded Voir Dire Judge Experience and Observations: Voir Dire Type and Pilot vs.

Comparison

The voir dire judge survey included 15 questions administered to both pilot and comparison judges

in the pilot jurisdictions following voir dire proceedings. Overall, findings indicate the process and

experience of voir dire differed when conducted by pilot judges. The following paragraphs provide

an overview of the survey findings comparing pilot judges to comparison judges, and voir dire

style reportedly used, followed by question-specific findings.

Summary

Responses from both pilot and comparison judges indicate that voir dire was conducted primarily

through oral questioning across both existing and expanded voir dire practices, with written

questionnaires used infrequently. Under expanded practices, individualized questioning methods

were reported more frequently, particularly sidebar questioning, reported by 76.7% (227) of pilot

judges and 71.1% (298) of comparison judges, compared to 15.4% (2) and 22.5% (27),

respectively, under existing practices. Full panel questioning in open court was widely reported by

pilot and comparison judges, with 95.9% of all responses indicating this method was used under

expanded voir dire.

Questioning across pilot and comparison judges and voir dire types was largely judge-led, though

expanded voir dire practices included greater shared attorney participation than did existing

practices. Under existing practices, judge-exclusive questioning was more common, reported in

84.6% (11) of pilot and 91.7% (110) of comparison responses. Under expanded practices, judgeprimary questioning was reported by 82.8% (245) of pilot and 80.0% (335) of comparison judges’

responses, while equal participation between judge and attorney was reported in 11.5% (34) of

pilot and 5.5% (23) of comparison judges’ responses, respectively.

Many pilot judges (80.8%, 249) and comparison judges (91.6%, 493) reported that voir dire took

the right amount of time under both existing and expanded voir dire practices. Reports that voir

dire took more time than reasonably necessary were higher among pilot judges (16.9%; 50

responses) than comparison judges (6.7%; 36 responses).

Across measures of effectiveness, pilot and comparison judges generally reported high levels of

perceived effectiveness under both existing and expanded practices. Under expanded practices,

89.2% (264) of pilot judges’ responses and 95.2% (397) of comparison judges’ responses indicated

that voir dire adequately assisted in detecting juror bias, compared to 100.0% (13) of pilot judges’

responses and 96.7% (116) of comparison judges’ responses under existing practices. Ratings

regarding effectiveness for identifying jurors for removal for cause were similarly high across both

models, with 96.3% (285) of pilot judges’ responses under expanded practices indicating that the

process was extremely or moderately effective, compared to 100.0% (13) under existing practices.

Ratings related to informing peremptory challenges were also high under expanded practices, with

90.2% (266) of pilot and 93.6% (392) of comparison judges’ responses indicating that the process

was extremely or moderately effective, compared to 61.1% (8) of pilot and 89.2% (107) of

comparison judges’ responses under existing practices.

Responses regarding the impact of attorney participation varied. Among pilot judges’ responses

under expanded practices, 78.0% (231) strongly or somewhat agreed that attorney questions

elicited relevant information, compared to 80.6% (338) of comparison judges.

Under existing practices, agreement that attorney questions elicited relevant information was lower

for pilot (53.9%, 7 pilot judges) than comparison (40.0%, 48), and 30.8% (4) of pilot and 42.5%

(51) of comparison responses indicated that attorney questioning elicited relevant information was

not applicable. A similar pattern is observed for attorney-submitted topics, where agreement under

expanded voir dire exceeded 75% for both pilot and comparison judges, while existing practice

responses were more mixed and included higher shares of not applicable responses.

Many judges also reported that voir dire took the appropriate amount of time under both models,

although ratings were lower for expanded practices than for existing practices. Under expanded

practices, 80.0% (236) of pilot judges’ responses and 92.6% (387) of comparison judges’ responses

indicated that voir dire took the right amount of time. Reports that voir dire took more time than

reasonably necessary were higher among pilot judges’ responses under expanded practices (16.9%,

50) than among comparison judges’ responses (6.7%, 28). Under existing practices, 84.6% (11) of

pilot judges’ responses and 88.3% (106) of comparison judges’ responses reported that voir dire

took the right amount of time.

Overall, the findings indicate differences in how voir dire was conducted in pilot and comparison

courts, particularly with respect to individualized questioning and attorney participation. Across

both models, judges generally reported high levels of perceived effectiveness.

Details of the quantitative findings for each question included in the judge survey are provided in

the next section.

Question-specific findings

1. Who was involved in the voir dire process for this case?

Under expanded practices, judge primarily participation was reported by 71.6% (212) of pilot

judges’ responses and 71.8% (301) of comparison judges’ responses. Equal participation between

judges and attorney/self-represented parties was reported in 27.0% (80) of pilot judges’ responses

and 28.2% (118) of comparison judges’ responses. Two pilot judge surveys and no comparison

judge surveys indicated that the attorney/self-represented party was primarily involved under

expanded practices; similarly, no pilot or comparison judges’ responses noted attorney-exclusive

involvement.

Under existing voir dire practices, participation was predominantly judge oriented. Judge exclusive

involvement was reported in 61.5% (8) of pilot judges’ responses and 48.3% (58) of comparison

judges’ responses. Judge primary participation accounted for 7.7% (1) of pilot judges’ responses

and 32.5% (39) of comparison judges’ responses, while equal participation was reported less

frequently (30.8% (4) pilot judges; 19.2% (23) comparison judges). No pilot or comparison judges’

responses noted attorney-exclusive involvement. (See Table 34).

Table 34: Judge Experience—"Who was involved in the voir dire process for this case?" 38

Independent Samples t-test, t(847) = -2.458, p = 0.014, d = -.175. Statistical tests assess the association

between court type and question response only; voir dire type was not included in the analysis and results

are based on aggregated data across voir dire categories.

2. Who asked questions of the potential jurors during voir dire for this case?

Under expanded practices, questioning was predominantly judge led; however, there was some

degree of shared participation. Among pilot judges’ responses, 82.8% (245) reported that the judge

primarily asked questions, compared to 80.0% (335) of comparison judges’ responses. Equal

participation between judge, attorney and self-represented parties was reported in 11.5% (34) of

pilot judges’ responses and 5.5% (23) of comparison judges’ responses. Judge exclusive

questioning was less common under expanded practices, reported in 5.1% (15) of pilot judges’ and

14.6% (61) of comparison judges’ responses.

Under existing practices, questioning was overwhelmingly judge exclusive. This was reported in

84.6% (11) of pilot responses and 91.7% (110) of comparison responses. Judge primary

questioning accounted for a smaller share (7.7% (1) pilot; 4.2% (5) comparison), with minimal

(7.7%, (1) pilot; 4.1% (5) comparison) reporting any type of shared participation.

Attorney led participation was not reported as being used under expanded or existing practices, or

by pilot or comparison judge. (See Table 35).

Table 35: Judge Experience—"Who asked questions of the potential jurors during voir dire for

this case?” By voir dire and judge type 39

Independent Samples t-test, t(726.296) = -8.509, p < 0.001, d = -.581. Statistical tests assess the

association between court type and question response only; voir dire type was not included in the analysis

and results are based on aggregated data across voir dire categories.

3. How Voir Dire was Conducted (Six Questions)

Under both expanded and existing practices, pilot and comparison judges primarily used oral

questioning, while written questionnaires were rarely utilized. Case-specific written questionnaires

were reported in only 3.0% (9) of pilot and 1.2% (5) of comparison judges’ responses under

expanded practices, with no reported use under the existing model (0.0% (0) pilot judge; 0.0% (0)

comparison judge). Similarly, use of any written questionnaire, whether case-specific or

standardized, remained low under expanded practices (3.7% (11) pilot judge; 2.1% (9) comparison

judge) and was not reported at all under existing practices (0.0% (0) for both groups). Standardized

questionnaires alone were almost never used, with 0.8% (7) reported across both voir dire and

judge types.

In contrast, oral questioning methods were widely used, with variation by voir dire type. Under

expanded practices, individualized questioning was more common, particularly at sidebar or

another location, reported by 76.7% (227) of pilot judges’ and 71.1% (298) of comparison judges’

responses, compared to 15.4% (2) and 22.5% (27), respectively, under existing practices.

Individual questioning in open court was used less frequently overall but was more common under

expanded practices (21.6% (64) pilot judge; 11.5% (48) comparison judge) than under the existing

model. Across pilot and comparison judges and voir dire types, oral questioning of the full jury

panel in open court was nearly universal, reported in 95.9% of responses. Overall, the findings

indicate that expanded practices are associated with greater use of individualized oral questioning,

while written questionnaires remain uncommon regardless of voir type. (See Table 36).

Table 36: Judge Experience—How voir dire was conducted. By voir dire and judge type 40

Statistical tests assess the association between court type and question response only; voir dire type was

not included in the analysis and results are based on aggregated data across voir dire categories. Oral

questions posed to individual potential jurors in open court: Chi-square, χ² (1, N=848) = 20.199, p < 0.001.

Oral questions posed to individual potential jurors at a sidebar or other location: χ² (1, N=848) = 16.545, p

< 0.001. Case-specific written questionnaire completed by potential jurors: Chi-square , χ² (1, N=848) =

4.766, p = .029

4. In your opinion, voir dire took (how much time)?

Across both expanded and existing practices, most responses indicated that voir dire took the right

amount of time. Under the expanded model, this was reported by 80.0% (236) of pilot judges’

responses and 92.6% (387) of comparison judges’ responses. A higher share of pilot judges’

responses indicated that more time than reasonably necessary was required (16.9% (50)) compared

to comparison judges’ responses (6.7% (28)).

Under existing practices, 84.6% (11) of pilot judges’ responses and 88.3% (106) of comparison

judges’ responses reported voir dire took the right amount of time. A smaller share reported that

voir dire took less time than necessary (15.4% (2) pilot judges; 5.0% (6) comparison judges), while

0% (0) of pilot judges’ responses and 6.7% (8) of comparison judges’ responses indicated voir dire

took more time than reasonably necessary. (See Table 37.)

Table 37: Judge Experience—"In your opinion, voir dire took…" By Judge and Voir Dire Type. 41

Independent samples t-test, t(466.080) = -2.802, p = .005, d = -.222. Statistical tests assess the association

between court type and question response only; voir dire type was not included in the analysis and results

are based on aggregated data across voir dire categories.

5. Did the voir dire process adequately assist in your ability to detect juror bias in this

case?

Under expanded practices, adequacy was indicated by both pilot and comparison judges’ groups.

Among pilot judges, 89.2% (264) indicated “yes,” compared to 95.2% (397) of comparison judges’

responses. “No” responses were limited (2.0% (6) pilot judge; 0.5% (2) comparison judge), and

“unsure” responses were reported by 8.8% (26) of pilot judges’ and 4.3% (18) of comparison

judges’ responses.

Under existing practices, agreement was higher overall. All pilot judges’ responses (100.0% (13))

indicated “yes,” while 96.7% (116) of comparison judges’ responses indicated “yes,” with 3.3%

(4) reporting “unsure” and zero “no” responses. (See Table 38).

Table 38: Judge Experience—“Did the voir dire process adequately assist in your ability to

detect juror bias in this case?" By judge and voir dire type. 42

Chi-square χ² (2, N=846) = 12.280, p = .002. Statistical tests assess the association between court type

and question response only; voir dire type was not included in the analysis and results are based on

aggregated data across voir dire categories.

6. How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors for informing the use of

peremptory challenges in this case?

Under expanded practices, among pilot judges’ responses, 39.3% (116) rated the process as

extremely effective and 50.8% (150) as moderately effective, for 90.2% (266) combined reported

effectiveness. Comparison judges’ responses were similar, with 45.6% (191) extremely effective

and 48.0% (201) moderately effective, or 93.6% (392) combined reported effectiveness. Neutral

responses were 9.5% (28) for pilot judges and 5.7% (24) for comparison judges’ responses, while

reports of ineffectiveness were less than 1% for both pilot and comparison judges’ responses.

Under existing practices, effectiveness ratings were lower and more varied. Among pilot judges’

responses, 23.1% (3) rated the process as extremely effective and 38.5% (5) as moderately

effective, while 30.8% (4) reported neutral and 7.7% (1) reported not at all useful/ineffective.

Among comparison judges’ responses, 52.5% (63) rated the process as extremely effective and

36.7% (44) as moderately effective, with smaller shares reporting neutral (9.2% (11)) or slightly

ineffective (1.7% (2)). (See Table 39).

Table 39: Judge Experience—“How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors for

informing the use of peremptory challenges?” By judge and voir dire type. 43

Independent samples t-test, t(845) = -2.512, p = 0.012, d = -.179. Statistical tests assess the association

between court type and question response only; voir dire type was not included in the analysis and results

are based on aggregated data across voir dire categories.

7. How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors to remove for cause in

this case?

Effectiveness for removal for cause was high across both expanded and existing models. Under

expanded practices, 59.5% (176) of pilot judges’ responses and 67.5% (283) of comparison judges’

responses rated the process as extremely effective, with an additional 36.8% (109) and 31.3%

(131), respectively, rating it as moderately effective.

Under existing practices, extremely effective ratings were higher among comparison judges’

responses (80.0% (96)) than pilot judges’ responses (69.2% (9)), with the remainder largely

indicating moderate effectiveness (30.8% (4) pilot judges; 17.5% (21) comparison judges).

Reports of ineffectiveness were minimal across both voir dire types. (See Table 40).

Table 40: Judge Experience—“How effective was the voir dire process for identifying jurors to

remove for cause?” By judge and voir dire type. 44

Independent samples t-test, t(846) = -3.323, p < 0.001, d = -.248. Statistical tests assess the association

between court type and question response only; voir dire type was not included in the analysis and results

are based on aggregated data across voir dire categories.

8. Topics submitted by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant juror information necessary

to select a jury in this case.

Under the expanded model, agreement was high proportionally among both pilot and comparison

judges. Among pilot judges’ responses, 30.4% (90) strongly agreed and 47.6% (141) somewhat

agreed, compared to 27.9% (117) and 52.7% (221) among comparison judges’ responses. Neutral

responses were 8.1% (24) among pilot judges compared to 9.5% (64) among comparison judges.

Disagreement, strongly or somewhat, was minimal for both pilot and comparison judges, with

4.4% (13) of pilot judges strongly or somewhat disagreeing and 4.6% (32) among judges in the

comparison group.

Under the existing model, responses were more mixed and included a higher share of not

applicable responses. Among pilot judges’ responses, 7.7% (1) strongly agreed and 38.5% (5)

somewhat agreed, and 38.5% (5) were marked not applicable. Two pilot judges (15.4%) somewhat

disagreed with this statement. Among comparison judges’ responses, 20.8% (25) strongly agreed

and 49.2% (59) somewhat agreed, 4.2% (5) strongly disagreed, 2.5% (3) somewhat disagreed, and

15.0% (18) responded as not applicable. (See Table 41).

Table 41: Judge Experience—“Topics Submitted by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant juror

information necessary to select a jury for this case.” By judge and voir dire type.

9. Questions asked by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant juror information necessary

to select a jury in this case.

Under expanded practices, agreement was proportionally high for both pilot and comparison

responses. Among pilot judges’ responses, 29.1% (86) strongly agreed and 48.6% (144) somewhat

agreed, compared to 23.6% (99) and 53.2% (223), respectively, among comparison judges’

responses. Neutral responses were similar across groups (8.4% (25) pilot; 9.1% (38) comparison).

Disagreement remained limited with 7.8% (23) pilot and 4.3% (18) comparison responses

somewhat disagreeing, and 1.4% (4) of pilot 3.6% (15) of comparison responses strongly

disagreeing.

Under existing practices, there were fewer responses overall, agreement was lower and not

applicable responses were more common. Among pilot judges’ responses, 15.4% (2) strongly

agreed and 38.5% (5) somewhat agreed, while 30.8% (4) were marked not applicable. Among

comparison responses, 11.7% (14) strongly agreed and 28.3% (34) somewhat agreed, with 42.5%

(51) not applicable. Disagreement was very low with zero pilot judges disagreeing and 0.8% (1)

and 3.3% (4) of comparison judges somewhat and strongly disagreeing respectively. (See Table

42).

Table 42: Judge Experience—“Questions asked by attorneys were likely to elicit relevant juror

information necessary to select a jury in this case.” By judge and voir dire type.

10. All or some jurors not answering regular voir dire questioned at bench or sidebar.

During the pilot, an additional question was incorporated due to feedback from pilot judges. This

question was added to assess whether all jurors were subject to follow-up questioning (e.g., at

sidebar or the bench).

Under expanded practices, pilot judges’ responses (n=66), 45.5% (30) reported that only jurors

who responded affirmatively to one or more general voir dire questions were questioned further,

while 43.9% (29) indicated that all potential jurors were questioned regardless of their responses.

An additional 10.6% (7) selected “other.” In contrast, comparison judges’ responses (n=89) were

more concentrated, with 88.8% (79) reporting that only jurors who responded affirmatively were

questioned further. A smaller share, 5.6% (5), indicated that all jurors were questioned regardless

of response, and 5.6% (5) selected “other.” Overall, across both groups (n=155), 70.3% (109)

reported that only jurors with affirmative responses were questioned further, 21.9% (34) reported

questioning all jurors, and 7.7% (12) selected other approaches.

Under existing practices, responses were limited (only 5 comparison judges’ responses; no pilot

judges’ responses reported). All comparison judges’ responses (100.0%, (5)) indicated that only

jurors who responded to one or more initial voir dire question were questioned further, with no

responses indicating that all jurors were questioned or that other approaches were used. (See Table

43).

Table 43: Judge Experience—“All or some jurors not answering regular voir dire questioned at

bench or sidebar.” By voir dire and judge type.

Voir Dire

Type

Expanded

Practices

Existing

Practices

Response

All potential jurors regardless of whether they responded

affirmatively to any general voir dire questions

Only potential jurors who responded affirmatively to one or more

general voir dire questions

Other

Total

All potential jurors regardless of whether they responded

affirmatively to any general voir dire questions

Only potential jurors who responded affirmatively to one or more

general voir dire questions

Other

Total

Grant Total

Pilot

Response

% of

Count

Total

Comparison

Response

% of

Count

Total

Response

% of

Count

Total

43.9%

5.6%

21.9%

45.5%

88.8%

109

70.3%

10.6%

5.6%

7.7%

100.0%

155

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

160

100.0%

Post Voir Dire Pilot Feedback: Pilot and Administrative Judges

Following the conclusion of the expanded voir dire pilot study in December 2025, pilot and

administrative judges in the pilot jurisdictions were given the opportunity to provide comments in

a brief survey regarding their experiences and perceptions, including any noted challenges or

practices they would be most likely to continue as well as potential training or resource needs. 45

Overall, the feedback from the responding 46 judges reflected mixed experiences and varying

perceptions. Several pilot judges indicated they plan to continue certain practices, while others

preferred returning to prior voir dire practices.

Some of the key areas for further analysis included attorney participation, particularly difficulty in

attorney engagement levels, the current use of expanded voir dire, improvements or changes to be

considered in the conduct of voir dire regardless of whether there is a rule change, the potential

impact of expanded voir dire on peremptory challenges and the broader operational implications.47

Question-Specific Findings:

1. As a result of your participation in the Expanded Voir Dire Pilot, are there any voir dire

practices or processes you expect to continue using, whether or not there is a rule

change?

Notably, a significant number of judges are already conducting a form of expanded voir dire and

are open to other methods should attorneys be interested in participating in individual cases as

appropriate. Many judges also recognized that there is an importance to the court interacting with

each juror on a panel during the voir dire process regardless of the manner in which voir dire is

conducted

As to the pilot judges, the most common practice that judges indicated they planned to continue

was the practice of bringing all jurors to the bench regardless of whether they responded to initial

questions to the panel. There were also pilot judges who indicated that they would consider the

use of other expanded voir dire types to include further adjustments to the voir dire they were

previously using, while four judges expressed a preference for returning to how they previously

conducted voir dire, citing the efficiency and adequacy of their previous practices for their courts.

Six of the administrative judges provided a response to this question. The answers included:

multiple responses noting that judges had already been using forms of expanded voir dire, multiple

responses noting that they would encourage the practice of making sure that all members of the

venire panel have participated in the process, one mention of the potential use of written

Comparison judges were not asked to complete the post-pilot survey.

Twenty-six total judges completed the post-pilot survey, encompassing 20 pilot judges and six

administrative judges in the pilot jurisdictions.

See Appendix F for the post-pilot survey responses

questionnaires in the appropriate case, and one mention of refining the present practices in terms

of using numbered sheets.

2. Did your court encounter any specific issues or challenges during the pilot?

The most common issue or challenge noted was the limited attorney participation in the pilot with

notations such as attorneys frequently did not fully engage in the expanded voir dire process. Some

pilot judges and one administrative pilot judge reported no significant challenges with attorneys.

Other judges responded that the pilot did not significantly alter their existing practices, as similar

approaches were already in use by them and in their courts.

As to both the pilot judges and the administrative judges in the pilot jurisdictions, the challenges

noted during the expanded voir dire pilot included the most common response that there was a lack

of attorney interest, preparation and participation, as well as multiple notations of issues with the

use of questionnaires, and references to the increased time taken for the expanded voir dire process.

Judges reported that questionnaires were often inefficient, burdensome, and time-consuming. In

particular, these judges noted that the use of written questionnaires prolonged the voir dire process.

3. What training, guidance or informational resources would be helpful for judges prior to

any potential implementation of expanded voir dire?

As to the pilot judges, the most common response to this question was that materials from the pilot,

additional resources and practice tips would be helpful for any such implementation. There were

notations again that forms of expanded voir dire were already being done as well as that additional

training resources would depend on the type of case and the form of expanded voir dire

implemented. Specific suggestions were that any additional training could be provided at New

Trial Judge Orientation (NTJO), with follow-up in the refresher, as well as training at the annual

judicial conference. It was noted that pilot judges could be helpful in any additional training

provided to circuit court judges. One judge mentioned the idea of the use of pre-trial status

conferences as a mechanism that could be helpful in outlining the case-specific voir dire

parameters.

As to the administrative judges, suggestions included providing the same resources as those that

were provided to the pilot judges, training on the effective use of any expanded voir dire, training

on timely jury selection, training on protection of juror privacy, and guidelines as to best practices.

4. Are there specific points or questions you would like to see addressed in the analysis of

the pilot program?

Both pilot and administrative judges, in response to this question about additional areas for

analysis, identified recurring themes.

A primary concern, and the most common, was the low level of attorney participation the pilot

with multiple judges noting that attorneys were not interested in the process even when provided

the opportunity. Judges commented that lack of engagement was counterproductive to the reason

the pilot was implemented.

Multiple pilot judges indicated they would like to see consideration of the number of peremptory

challenges, including the possible reduction or elimination of the use of peremptory challenges.

Additionally, both pilot and administrative judges questioned the operational costs and/or time

impacts related to the implementation of an expanded voir dire process, specifically towards

scheduling and other administrative aspects of the court process. Judges again noted that the use

of expanded voir dire was already being done. Some judges also raised concerns regarding the

juror experience as related to the potential for invasiveness. An administrative judge specifically

raised the issue as to how expanded voir dire would be implemented with pro se litigants.

5. Reflecting on your experience over the course of the pilot, are there any final thoughts,

insights, or knowledge you would like to share?

Judges were asked to reflect on their experience throughout the course of the pilot. In response to

this question, judges repeated their previous concerns about lack of attorney participation, with a

substantial number of pilot judges commenting on the attorneys’ lack of engagement. Some judges

expressed concern that attorney-led questioning could prolong the voir dire process or result in

less focused questioning. Other judges noted that either there is no need to change the current voir

dire process or that expanded voir dire practices were already in place prior to the pilot program.

Administrative judges made a variety of comments including that they did not believe a rule

change would impact operations dramatically unless certain forms of expanded voir dire were

made mandatory, that the perspective of the attorneys trying the cases is important as was the lack

of engagement, that making change could lead to a change that would negatively impact the

general uniformity of voir dire that is currently happening.

Notably, administrative judges in particular expressed that the experience of working

collaboratively with members of the bar was positive, that the pilot was important and could be

impactful, and that there is appreciation for the support and guidance provided during this process.

Attorney Engagement

As noted in responses to the post voir dire pilot feedback survey of pilot and administrative judges,

a common experience among judges was limited attorney engagement in the expanded voir dire

process. This observation was also raised throughout the project during status meetings with the

pilot judges. Because this issue arose after the implementation of the pilot project, no questions

related to attorney engagement with the expanded voir dire process were included in surveys for

judges or attorneys that follow each voir dire event. A review of open-ended comments submitted

on the judge’s post-voir dire event surveys indicate observations that attorneys chose not to

participate in expanded voir dire when provided the opportunity to do so. Specific feedback came

from eighteen judges in six of the eight pilot jurisdictions. The below statements from pilot judges

represent the general sentiments expressed regarding attorney engagement in expanded voir dire:

“The attorneys did not ask as many questions as expected during Individual

voir dire.”

“Neither attorney wanted to engage in different types of voir dire. Simple

case.”

“Attorneys not interested in participating.”

“Attorneys waived their right to do attorney voir dire questioning in this

case.”

“The lawyers didn’t take advantage of the expanded voir dire process as

much as they could have. Neither was particularly prepared to ask the

panel questions in as allowed by the pilot program.”

“Attorneys engaged but not overly enthusiastic about process and still

somewhat unsure of appropriate questions to submit…”

“Attorneys don’t seem terribly invested in the opportunity for expanded

questioning.”

“Neither Attorney took advantage for opportunities the court provided for

expanded voir dire. Court offered to bring up to the bench any potential

juror for additional questioning with no takers.”

“The attorneys did not want to engage in any of the options available in

the pilot program and wanted traditional voir dire.”

As noted previously, questions related to attorney engagement with the expanded voir dire process

were not included in surveys. Therefore, insight into the attorney perspective is limited to openended responses received on the attorney post-voir dire event survey. A review of responses

indicated a few common reasons attorneys may not have been engaged with expanded voir dire:

General lack of interest in expanded voir dire

“By agreement of the parties, expanded voir dire was not utilized here and

the process was done as it has been done for decades. No one involved in

this case believed that expanded voir dire would be helpful.”

“The pilot voir dire program seems redundant and futile. It adds

unnecessary burden in the period of trial preparation.”

Court emphasis on efficiency

“Judge seemed far more concerned about efficiency and getting voir dire

over with...”

Inadequate time available

“[H]ad we known prior to jury selection that we would be involved in the

process and how it was going to work, and had we had the opportunity to

develop questions in advance, the entire process may have been more

meaningful.”

“I

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.