What the research produces
- Juror profiles that matter for this case. Which life experiences and attitudes actually move reactions to your facts. Case-specific research routinely contradicts demographic folklore.
- Voir dire questions and questionnaires. Questions crafted to surface the experiences that matter, phrased so people answer honestly in open court, plus proposed written questionnaires where the court allows them.
- Cause-challenge groundwork. Knowing which answers signal disqualifying bias lets counsel build a record for cause rather than burning peremptories.
- A strike strategy. A ranked view of risk in the box when peremptories run short, which they always do.
Where the profiles come from
The traditional sources are consultant experience, community attitude surveys in the venue, and debriefs from mock exercises. Simulation adds a systematic version of that third source: run the case past a venue-matched panel, then examine which juror backgrounds and experiences drove which reactions. Because a Viewpoints.ai panel reports juror-by-juror reasoning, the profile evidence arrives attached to the words jurors use, which is exactly what voir dire questions need to probe for.
The boundaries that shape modern voir dire
Voir dire research operates inside real constraints, and competent research respects them by design. Peremptory strikes based on race or other protected classes are prohibited under Batson v. Kentucky, and a growing set of jurisdictions has tightened the standard further; Washington's General Rule 37 and California's Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 reach strikes that correlate with protected classes regardless of stated intent. Serious voir dire research therefore centers on case-relevant experiences and attitudes, which are both legally safer and empirically better predictors than demographics.
Timing
The useful sequence: panel testing during story development identifies the juror profiles that matter, community attitude work validates them in the venue if the stakes justify it, and the questionnaire and question set get drafted in the weeks before selection. Teams that start voir dire research the week before trial inherit whatever profiles a rushed gut produces.
Common questions
What is the difference between voir dire and voir dire research?
Voir dire is the courtroom questioning itself. Voir dire research is the preparation that decides what to ask and what the answers mean for cause challenges and strikes.
Do demographics predict verdicts?
Far less than case-specific experiences and attitudes do, and strikes driven by protected-class demographics are illegal. Research that ties juror reactions to experiences gives you predictors you can lawfully act on.
Can simulation tell me which jurors to strike?
It shows which juror profiles react which way to your case and why, which informs your questions and priorities. Strike decisions in the room remain counsel's judgment, made within the venue's legal limits.