Pittsburgh synagogue shooting trial: The science behind selecting the jury
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Jury selection has reached three days for the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting trial, and not one juror has been seated.
Prospective jurors have cried, avoided questions and hedged when asked about their beliefs on religion and the death penalty. So what do lawyers from both sides want to hear and not hear? A social scientist provided some insight.
David Zehner is a social scientist who runs Zehner Trial Consulting. He makes a living helping attorneys decide who to keep and who to strike.
Each side can do something called "strike for cause," where they get rid of people in the beginning. But then when they go through everyone, each side will get 20 strikes. They will then pick their jury from that remaining pool.
"For most cases like this, you end up with what we call a lowest common denominator. Jurors without a lot of strong opinions about anything," he said. "They don't set off any alarm bells for anybody, and they're the ones who get through the process."
What's happening the first few weeks is called voir dire, French for "to speak." Both sides want to ask potential jurors about their beliefs, attitudes and experiences.
"Prosecution-leaning jurors generally would have a connection to law enforcement, for example," Zehner said. "Either they or a family member was in law enforcement, which would make them more likely to believe that the charges are correct. They are more likely to be older, generally more conservative politically and in their views on social issues."
For the defense, Zehner said it's the opposite.
"You're looking for people who are more liberal," he said. "In this particular case would be people who maybe have had experience with mental health challenges who might be more sympathetic to the idea of someone really having a psychotic break."
Instead of jury selection, think of it as jury deselection, Zehner said.
"Both sides are looking to eliminate people who have strong leadership qualities who might have views that are contrary to the ones they want on the jury," he said. "So you're not only looking for people with views that are problematic but once you might end up being leaders in the jury."