THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 16 | NOVEMBER 2025 12 O.S. §6 (RULE 6) – Voir Dire Examination The judge shall initiate the voir dire examination of jurors by identifying the parties and their respective counsel. He may outline the nature of the case, the issues of fact and law to be tried, and may then put to the jurors any questions regarding their qualifications to serve as jurors in the cause on trial. The parties or their attorneys shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity to supplement such examination. Counsel shall scrupulously guard against injecting any argument in their voir dire examination and shall refrain from asking a juror how he would decide hypothetical questions involving law or facts. Counsel shall avoid repetition, shall not call jurors by their first names or indulge in other familiarities with individual jurors, and shall be fair to the court and opposing counsel. Note that the rule does not say the lawyer cannot call jurors by their last name, and indeed, they should. I don’t know if memorizing juror names would be considered “indulging in other familiarities with individual jurors,” but I was never called on it. In questioning jurors, you want to individualize. Ask each juror at least a few questions, and let them talk about themselves. It almost doesn’t matter what the subject is, so long as you get the juror talking, enabling you to gain insight into how they think and who they are. Questions posed to the whole panel are seldom illuminating. “Can all of you be fair and impartial?” is a net that doesn’t catch fish. 12 O.S. §12-575.1. Selection of Jury in Discretion of Court – Manner Notwithstanding other methods authorized by law, the trial judge may direct in his discretion that a jury in a civil case be selected in the following manner: (a) if the case be triable to a twelve-man jury, eighteen prospective jurors shall be called and seated in the box and then examined on voir dire; when eighteen such prospective jurors have been passed for cause, each side of the lawsuit shall exercise its peremptory challenges out of the hearing of the jury by alternately striking three names from the list of those so passed for cause, and the remaining twelve persons shall be sworn to try the case; (b) if the case be triable to a six-man jury, twelve prospective jurors shall be called and seated in the box and then examined on voir dire; when twelve such prospective jurors have been passed for cause, each side of the lawsuit shall exercise its peremptory challenges out of the hearing of the jury by alternately striking three names from the list of those so passed for cause, and the remaining six persons shall be sworn to try the case. If there be more than one defendant in the case, and the trial judge determines on motion that there is a serious conflict of interest between them, he may, in his discretion, allow each defendant to strike three names from the list of jurors seated and passed for cause. In such case he shall appropriately increase the number of jurors initially called and seated in the box for voir dire examination. A more comprehensive array of statutes on jury selection appears in Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Criminal Procedure, beginning at Section 591. Challenges to the panel and challenges to individual jurors are explained in detail, including definitions of challenges for cause and preemptory challenges. Attorneys trying criminal cases must familiarize themselves with these statutes, since they may be consequential, as they were in Warner v. State, discussed later. Much of the jury selection process is left up to the judge, which means you should become familiar with the judge’s protocol before entering the courtroom. Find out when the judge is trying a case, and be in the audience observing jury selection ahead of time. Make a mental note of any peculiar ways things are done, and adjust your technique. Some judges allow you to walk up to the jury box. Some require you to stay at the podium. Do whatever you can to connect with the jury, but observe any unwritten judicial constraints. I tried a case in Oklahoma County District Court in front of Judge (now Justice) Noma Gurich. My friend, Wild Bill Wilkinson, was on the other side for the plaintiff. Judge Gurich’s courtroom had an exceptionally large jury box with an extra-wide entrance to the box, and during voir dire, Mr. Wilkinson got into the box with the jurors, attempting to establish a connection through physical proximity. I stood to object, but as I Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==