Evaluation of the effects of Proposition 115 on voir dire practices in the criminal justice system.

摘要

This study examined the impact of Proposition 115, which limits counsel's direct examination of jurors, on the criminal justice system by analyzing the attitudes and concerns of a wide range of legal professionals. A 32-item questionnaire was distributed to all judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and private criminal defense attorneys practicing law in Orange County, California, municipal and superior courts. The results indicate that, as expected, judges feel that counsel consumes too much court time with prolonged voir dire. Judges support reductions in attorney voir dire, feel confident in their own ability to conduct voir dire, and do not feel that justice is hampered as a result. Private attorneys and public defenders believe that restrictions on direct attorney-conducted voir dire violate a defendant's due process and may also result in an increase in conviction rates. Prosecutors concur with public defenders and private attorneys on some issues, yet on others prosecutors voice opinions similar to those of judges. This research points out the need for an impartial analysis of the effects of current voir dire practices on the administration of law through the courts of justice.