| As a witness, I've been advised there are almost always only five correct
answers to a question. "Yes," "No,", "I don't know," "I don't recall," and "Can
you please repeat the question?". I've been advised to answer only the question
asked, and not to embellish the answer with additional details. Do not fall prey
to the social need to fill empty space with words; if the courtroom is silent
and everyone is looking at you, wait patiently for a question.
I think this
is all good advice.
But as a juror, I would not hold myself to such strict
rules. The whole point of voir dire is to find a suitable set of jurors, and by
necessity, "suitable" is in the eyes of the plaintiff, defendant, and judge. If
I was asked, "Have you ever been a plaintiff in an action regarding patents?" I
think it is perfectly reasonable to answer "Never a plaintiff, no, but once as a
defendant." Or "Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit," I would likely
answer, "Yes, three" rather than simply "yes". The five simple answers
described above are designed to avoid giving "the other side" some additional
information they might not be entitled to.
But I am at no risk here, and I
have no skin in this game. I'd like to participate, but there is no advantage to
me to be clever with my words. I'm not on one side or the other. I don't need
to fool anybody.
Unless, of course, I do have some skin in this game,
and I do need to fool someone. That's why if I'm later found to have
been untruthful, my entire participation is viewed with suspicion. Who would
lie -- or be intentionally "misleading" -- if they had no reason to?
IANAL,
but I can think of no good reason to use sophistry during voir dire and claim
that someone didn't ask the "right" question so it's not your fault. As PJ
pointed out, the system is tilted towards honesty. If you are looking for
logical nooks you can hide in, you may not be the juror we are looking for. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
