Free Evaluation

Jury Selection Tips & Rules for a California DUI Atttorney

In a California DUI / drunk driving trial, a California DUI attorney's jury selection is the cornerstone of the California DUI case. This is because many California DUI jurors know at the outset of the California DUI case that there is usually some type of test in a California DUI arrest. As a result many, if not most of the California DUI jurors, unfairly presume the defendant must have committed the California DUI offense.

Many California DUI jurors first ask themselves - what were the results of the California DUI breath and blood tests? In the California DUI jurors' generally unfair perception, California DUI blood/breath tests unfortunately equate to guilt...at least initially. As the California DUI case progresses, the jurors find out the evidence and tests are far from perfect and therefore the California DUI attorney prosecutor has not entirely proven his or her California DUI case beyond a reasonable doubt.

This presumption of guilt, coupled with unfairly negative California DUI publicity directed towards citizens accused of California DUI / drunk driving, makes jury selection the fateful and most important event in a California DUI drunk driving trial. California DUI attorneys spend alot of time just trying to even out the playing field, to make things a little fairer.

California DUI attorneys trying drunk driving cases realize there are generally many more people in the jury pool who hold preconceived, unfavorable opinions about the defendant on trial than there are those who are suspicious of the California DUI attorney prosecutor’s case. So it makes sense from the California DUI defense attorney's perspective not to expose potential favorable jurors who are not preconceived by asking questions of them during the California DUI voir dire process that would focus on any California DUI defense open mindedness.

During jury selections, California DUI attorneys must remind themselves what to fairly expect. The following California DUI attorney jury selection concepts may fairly help:

• The California DUI attorney's ongoing question should be whether the California DUI jury is going to be getting better (or more fair), or is it going to be getting worse (or less fair).

• With very limited exceptions, a California DUI attorney should never use all peremptory challenges.

• If the California DUI defense attorney is outpacing the California DUI attorney prosecutor in peremptory challenges, the California DUI defense attorney need to be more selective.

• As a California DUI attorney depletes his or her peremptory challenges, the California DUI attorney should be more selective.

• The California DUI attorney should focus attention on the likely decision-makers in the jury. Most California DUI jury verdicts are often driven by unfair opinions of just two, three, or four people on the California DUI jury.

• People without prior/preconceived criminal jury experience are generally more fair and preferred by a California DUI attorney.

• People who take contrary views tend to hang California DUI cases.

• California DUI juror alliances are stronger than lone voices. California DUI attorneys can try to fairly strike at least one of undesirable jurors who are part of an unfair alliance. Doing so allows the California DUI attorney to maximize use of peremptory challenges.

• California DUI attorneys should not prefer anybody on the jury who wants to unfairly be on the jury because people who want to serve on juries generally have an unfair agenda.

• A California DUIattorney is never going to get a perfectly fair California DUI jury, but with some luck the California DUI attorney will get a more fair jury.

• California DUI jurors reasonably tend to discuss most during deliberations what was discussed most during the California DUI case. Starting with voir dire, California DUI attorney should make sure adequate time is spent fairly addressing fundamental concerns.

• A California DUI lawyer must have a command of the jury selection rules that
govern California’s jury selection process.

California DUI lawyer must know the following jury selection rules for the State of California:

California Code of Civil Procedure §191 provides:
State policy; random selection; opportunity and obligation to serve
The Legislature recognizes that trial by jury is a cherished constitutional right, and that jury service is an obligation of citizenship.
It is the policy of the State of California that all persons selected for jury service shall be selected at random from the population of the area served by the court; that all qualified persons have an equal opportunity, in accordance with this chapter, to be considered for jury service in the state and an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose; and that it is the responsibility of jury commissioners to manage all jury systems in an efficient, equitable, and cost-effective manner, in accordance with this chapter.

California Code of Civil Procedure §204 provides:
Exemptions and excuses from jury service
(a) No eligible person shall be exempt from service as a trial juror by reason of occupation, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, economic status, or sexual orientation, or for any other reason. No person shall be excused from service as a trial juror except as specified in subdivision (b).
(b) An eligible person may be excused from jury service only for undue hardship, upon themselves or upon the public, as defined by the Judicial Council.

California Code of Civil Procedure §219 provides: ...
(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), no peace officer, as defined in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, shall be selected for voir dire in criminal matters.

California Code of Civil Procedure §220 provides:
Number of jurors
A trial jury shall consist of 12 persons, except that in civil actions and cases of misdemeanor, it may consist of 12 or any number less than 12, upon which the parties may agree.

California Code of Civil Procedure §223 provides:
Criminal cases; voir dire examination by court and counsel
In a criminal case, the court shall conduct an initial examination of prospective jurors. The court may submit to the prospective jurors additional questions requested by the parties as it deems proper. Upon completion of the court’s initial examination, counsel for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct questioning, any or all of the prospective jurors. The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, limit the oral and direct questioning of prospective jurors by counsel. The court may specify the maximum amount of time that counsel for each party may question an individual juror, or may specify an aggregate amount of time for each party, which can then be allocated among the prospective jurors by counsel. Voir dire of any prospective jurors shall, where practicable, occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including death penalty cases. Examination of prospective jurors shall be conducted only in aid of the exercise of challenges for cause.
The trial court’s exercise of its discretion in the manner in which voir dire is conducted, including any limitation on the time which will be allowed for direct questioning of prospective jurors by counsel and any determination that a question is not in aid of the exercise of challenges for cause, shall not cause any conviction to be reversed unless the exercise of that discretion has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of the California Constitution.

California Code of Civil Procedure §225 provides:
Challenges; definition; classes and types
A challenge is an objection made to the trial jurors that may be taken by any party to the action, and is of the following classes and types:
...
(b) A challenge to a prospective juror by either:
(1) A challenge for cause, for one of the following reasons:
(A) General disqualification—that the juror is disqualified from serving in the action on trial.
(B) Implied bias—as, when the existence of the facts, as ascertained, in judgment of law disqualifies the juror.
(C) Actual bias—the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality and without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party.
(2) A peremptory challenge to a prospective juror.
California Code of Civil Procedure §231 provides:
Peremptory challenges; number; joint defendants; passing challenges
(a) In criminal cases, if the offense charged is punishable with death, or with imprisonment in the state prison for life, the defendant is entitled to 20 and the people to 20 peremptory challenges. Except as provided in subdivision (b), in a trial for any other offense, the defendant is entitled to 10 and the state to 10 peremptory challenges.
...
(d) Peremptory challenges shall be taken or passed by the sides alternately, commencing with the plaintiff or people, and each party shall be entitled to have the panel full before exercising any peremptory challenge. When each side passes consecutively, the jury shall then be sworn, unless the court, for good cause, shall otherwise order. The number of peremptory challenges remaining with a side shall not be diminished by any passing of a peremptory challenge.
(e) If all the parties on both sides pass consecutively, the jury shall then be sworn, unless the court, for good cause, shall otherwise order. The number of peremptory challenges remaining with a side shall not be diminished by any passing of a peremptory challenge.

California Code of Civil Procedure §231.5 provides:
Peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors; bias
A party may not use a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the prospective juror is biased merely because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.

California DUI lawyers should fairly have these laws at their disposal.