[2] Extended voir dire in major controlled substance trials may increase accuracy in predicting individual verdicts from 50% to 78%.
[7] With regard to legal proceedings within the U.S. military, one argument has been advanced that selection of juries for courts-martial is subject to too much control by commanders, who can pick jurors who will be most likely to convict and hand down heavy penalties.
[8] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) banned peremptory challenges based solely on race, although the U.S. Supreme Court has since acted to mitigate its impact.
[9] The issue of racial bias in jury selection has been complicated by the question of whose rights are implicated; the potential juror's, or the defendant's.
[10] A Michigan Law Review article, published in 1978, asserted that young people, during that period, were under-represented on the nation's jury rolls.
[11] A 2012 study from Duke University published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics investigated the effect of jury selection and racial composition on trial outcomes.
[19] These independent investigations usually happen without any notice to the jurors, the court, or other parties in the case, which circumvents judicial oversight of the jury selection process.
[18] Since then, however, some potential jurors have been required to disclose, under oath and to the general public, a wide variety of personal information, including, among other things, their religious and political beliefs; which films or television shows they watch; any bumper stickers on their vehicles; their sexual history and sexual orientation; whether they have been the victim of rape, incest, or other abuse; their medical conditions and which medications they are taking or have taken in the past; whether they have taken illegal drugs; how much money they or their families have; whether they have declared bankruptcy; political contributions they have made; and past criminal convictions.