Speaker 1: Hi, this is Dan Kaufman for the MLS Network. Tonight we're going to talk about the most important part of any jury trial, which is jury selection. There is some debate always about which is the most important part, and easily jury selection is the most important, because if you do not have a fair jury, then you have no chance of winning. Better lawyers, better witnesses, better evidence do not matter if you don't pick the right jury. There's two purposes for jury selection. Number one is to make sure that all unfair jurors, people who cannot be fair for your case, are kicked off. And equally as important, that you find and pick the jurors that are going to be pro or favor your side of the case. At the beginning of all jury selection or jury trials, there must have been some type of system set up. Perhaps maybe the first six people that walked in the room. Perhaps somebody who could just vote, they were automatically put on. Over time, what has happened is we have an opportunity as lawyers to ask questions. That is the only way that we can find out whether you're going to be fair or unfair. Sometimes a question is as simple as, are you going to be fair, and they say no, and then they're out. So each lawyer has an opportunity, let's say an hour each, to ask the jury panel, which is usually 15 in number, what their feelings are on certain topics, what their feelings are towards certain issues, and then we as lawyers go back and figure out whether we want that juror. Now, for example, let's suppose you and your neighbor had a fight over a piece of property that was worth a million dollars, and then the jury box consisted of his friends and family. No matter what the evidence showed, you have no chance of winning that case. So you would have an opportunity to tell the judge, judge, this juror can't be fair because it's his brother, this juror can't be fair because it's his boss. If you went to Gainesville, Florida, and you were at Shantz Hospital, all the employees that worked there would be out. If you went to Disney World in California or Florida, anybody who worked for them, you wouldn't be able to sit on a jury where they were involved as a party. What I'd like to do next is to discuss with you or show you how jury selection questions are asked. But keep in mind two things. Number one, if the person admits they can't be fair, they're automatically excused. If you just think about it, you're out. History. Hit the road. That's basically what I'm trying to do. The other one, a little more subtle, maybe you say you can be fair, but I don't think you can. I get three strikes. They're also called peremptory challenges. I get three of them, and that's it. So I'm going to be trying to use all the cause challenges or that you can't be fair. If not, I don't think an insurance company person can be fair even though they say she can. So let's go and show you an example of how we're going to try to select a fair juror, and equally as important, somebody who's pro my side. We're going to do a dog bite case. I'm going to be asking one sample juror some questions. Normally you wouldn't stand this close, but because of our photography limitations, we're going to stand closer than normal. Would you state your name for me, please?

Speaker 2: My name is Joel Magdovitz.

Speaker 1: And where do you live, Mr. Magdovitz? What state do you live in?

Speaker 2: I live in Florida.

Speaker 1: And what do you do for a living, sir?

Speaker 2: I am an insurance company person.

Speaker 1: And how long have you done that?

Speaker 2: Probably 20 years. Do you own a dog? I do.

Speaker 1: And what type of dog is it?

Speaker 2: I own a Maltese.

Speaker 1: And has that dog ever bitten anybody before?

Speaker 2: Greatest dog in the world.

Speaker 1: We're here today on a dog bite case. How do you feel about sitting on a jury that involves injuries suffered when a dog bit my client?

Speaker 2: I don't see a problem with that.

Speaker 1: Can you be fair for that kind of case?

Speaker 2: Of course I can.

Speaker 1: Do you think that the supervisor or owner of a dog can be at fault for not monitoring their dog?

Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sure there's maybe a possibility, but I haven't seen any problems with any dogs.

Speaker 1: If a dog bit a child, would you favor one side or the other without knowing what happened?

Speaker 2: I could see, you know, me having maybe an issue or two, but I think it's all good.

Speaker 1: And those issues, what are they?

Speaker 2: I think, you know, dogs should be kept with their owners. And if they're kept with their owners, then they should be safe.

Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Magdovitz. Now we're going to pretend that the witness takes a different approach to see how that's handled. What is your name, sir?

Speaker 2: My name is Joel Magdovitz.

Speaker 1: And do you own a dog, sir?

Speaker 2: No, I don't own a dog.

Speaker 1: And we're here today on a dog bite case. How do you feel about folks who bring lawsuits for injuries suffered when they're bitten by a dog?

Speaker 2: I mean, they deserve, you know, every problem that they have. Those dogs are the worst.

Speaker 1: And do you feel that if the dog bites the person, that dog owner should always be responsible for that?

Speaker 2: If it's one of those dangerous dogs and those big, scary things that, like, you know, I get a little worried about when I see them, yeah, they deserve a big problem with that.

Speaker 1: And the owner's always going to be at fault for those things?

Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't see how they couldn't be at fault.

Speaker 1: Do you agree, then, that this type of case probably is not the best type of case for you to be sitting on since you are going to be always leaning against the dog owner as far as being responsible?

Speaker 2: I mean, I think I could be fair and impartial in this case, but, you know, I'm not a big fan of dogs.

Speaker 1: After the jury selection finishes and we go through the 15 jurors that are sitting there, both lawyers then go up to the judge and have a sidebar or a private meeting that the jurors cannot hear. At that point, the second time the witness played the juror, that person would probably be excused for cause. Even though they said they can be fair, the judge would probably say since the beginning of the answers were that I'm against dogs, mean dogs, things like that, probably for cause. The first one would not have been excused at all. I'm Professor Dan Kaufman. You're watching Mr. Law School, but you should be studying.