1. define the word voir dire and how is it used in a trial?

Voir dire is the method where the judge or lawyers ask questions of prospective jurors to learn information about jurors and decide whether they will be biased, prejudiced or possess any other information that the attorney feels would affect the decision of a prospective juror in the case. Voir dire is used in a trial where the attorneys for the parties take turns asking the specific questions to prospective jurors and based upon the answers, either accept the juror or seek to have the juror removed either for cause or through the use of a peremptory challenge.

2. define - peremptory challenge, and what is its purpose in selecting a jury?

A peremptory challenge is the process by which both parties in a lawsuit are provided a specific number of rejections of potential jurors during the voir dire process, for those jurors who appear to be bias but have not explicitly stated a reason confirming that such a bias exists (as opposed to removal for cause, where the reason for being biased has already been disclosed). The purpose of a peremptory challenge in selecting a jury is to protect the parties against the judgment of those jurors who are biased and cannot make a fair, impartial decision based solely upon the facts of the case and the evidence provided at trial.

3. How many peremptory challenges did plaintiff have in this case? how many were used?

The plaintiff had three peremptory challenges in this case. All three of the peremptory challenges were used.

4.  should an attorney always challenge for cause the selection of a biased juror? why or why not

Yes, an attorney should always challenge for cause the selection of a biased jury, since: a) their client is entitled to an impartial jury; b) unlike with peremptory challenges, an attorney has an unlimited number of challenges for cause, thereby allowing the attorney to preserve their peremptory challenges for other reasons; and c) challenging for cause preserves the issue on appeal and if the attorney convinces the appellate court that the juror should have been removed for cause, but the judge did not do so, the client receives a new trial to remedy the error.

5. the case was "reversed and remanded" - explain those terms

Reversed and remanded means that the Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the trial court (i.e., reversed) and sent it back for a new trial with a new jury (i.e., remanded).

6. who won the case (name of the party, not plaintiff, etc) and why - give the rule of law

 The Rule of Law for this case is: When during voir dire it is evident that a prospective juror has a prior belief that is both material and contestable, it is the role of the judge to investigate further and provide assurances that the prospective juror could exercise a judgment that is unclouded by that belief.

The plaintiff, Rhodda Thompson, won the case because the trial judge upon establishing that prospective juror, Leiter, manifested a prior belief that employees who do not receive the benefits are more inclined to bring forth a lawsuit against their employer, failed to further investigate this prior belief further to see if it manifested itself into an actual bias. The court in this case, found that Leiter’s prior beliefs about employees were both material and contestable and it was the judge's duty to determine whether Leiter was capable of suspending that belief for the duration of the trial or whether it would manifest itself into an actual bias. This court found that the trial judge failed to investigate further and provide assurances that Leiter could exercise a judgment unclouded by that belief.

Moodle Docs for this page