1.Are you aware of the 2024 proposed Rule changes (to Rule 2-512 and Rule 4-312) regarding an expansion of voir dire in civil and criminal trials?

Yes

No

2.Do you think voir dire needs to be expanded to eliminate implicit bias?

Yes

No

Unsure

Undecided

3.If yes, what are the benefits you see to expanding voir dire?

Judges and attorneys may probe for specific biases and prejudice relevant to the case in empaneling a jury.

Specific, case-relevant questions rather than more open-ended inquiries are more predictive of behavior, verdicts, and case judgments.

Other (please specify)

4.What if any concerns do you have about a proposed voir dire expansion? (Check all that apply.)

Potential jurors will be reluctant to admit their bias because they want to be seen as "good jurors."

Courts will face a slowing of their dockets and increased resources due to lengthier trial times to seat juries.

Extensive questioning may invade jurors' privacy.

It is unclear whether judges or attorneys will lead voir dire or share in the questioning equally.

Potential jurors can already admit their sources of bias and set them aside through judicial instruction, without expanded questioning.

None.

Other (please specify)

5.Do you think the Rules should address concerns about the use of peremptory challenges, as other states like Washington and California have done?

Yes

No

6.What changes do you think should be considered to peremptory strikes?

None

Expanded

Reduced

Eliminated

Unsure/No Opinion

7.Please add your comments or thoughts as to the basis for your answer above.

8.Please share any other comments here.

9.You are welcome to share your name, email, and association/firm here.

Name

Company

City/Town

Email Address