Is there evidence that giving attorneys more time to ask more detailed questions would better predict juror bias? “We found a resounding ‘yes,’” says Valerie Hans, who joins Jessica Salerno and John Campbell to discuss their groundbreaking research. Valerie, of Cornell Law School and a leading authority on the jury system; Jessica, a social psychologist from Cornell University's psychology department; and John, trial lawyer-turned-researcher and co-author of JuryBall, published their findings in a 2021 paper called “The Impact of Minimal Versus Extended Voir Dire and Judicial Rehabilitation on Mock Juror's Decisions In Civil Cases.” Hosts Alicia Campbell, Nick Schweitzer, and Kevin Doran unpack the significance of their study, including that extended voir dire with case-specific questions identified 42% of jurors as potentially excludable, while minimal voir dire captured less than 2%. 

Connect with Fred

☑️ Jessica Salerno | LinkedIn

☑️ Trial by Data and Cornell University | Facebook | X

☑️ Valerie Hans | LinkedIn

☑️ Cornell Law School | LinkedIn | Facebook | X | Instagram

☑️ John Campbell

☑️ Campbell Law

☑️ Alicia Campbell

☑️ Nick Schweitzer

☑️ Kevin Doran

☑️ Focus with Fred

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Produced and Powered by LawPods