NOVEMBER 2025 | 17 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 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. did so, I couldn’t think of any rule that was being violated, so I simply said, “Objection, your honor, Mr. Wilkinson is in the jury box!” Judge Gurich said, “Mr. Wilkinson, get out of there.” But five minutes later, Mr. Wilkinson was right back in the box, so I had to object again, which, of course, was sustained by the court. Mr. Wilkinson was trying to be a zealous advocate, and that spirit (if not his technique) is what voir dire is about: connecting with the jurors. In federal court, lawyers do not typically have the opportunity to voir dire the jurors. The judge asks the questions, and lawyers are most often invited to submit additional questions in writing or to approach the bench and offer suggestions in a sidebar. I tried a case in the Western District before Judge Luther Bohanon, who conducted the voir dire and then turned to the plaintiff’s counsel and inquired, “Do you have any questions you’d like asked?” The plaintiff’s attorney said no. Judge Bohanon then turned to me and said, “Mr. Priest, any questions for the jury?” I saw an opening and immediately jumped up, said thank you to the court and approached the jury box to conduct my one and only federal court voir dire. Neither the judge nor the plaintiff’s counsel stopped me, and I thought I gained a better connection with the jury. Learn to be alert to opportunities wherever you find them. But don’t get in the jury box. LOOKING FOR TROUBLE-MAKERS Attorney Rachel Farrar wrote an outstanding article in the Oklahoma Bar Journal in 2018 about spotting “authoritarian” personalities, and I commend it to your reading: “Authoritarian Jurors and How to Spot Them.”5 In the article, Ms. Farrar writes: Psychologists, jury consultants and other social and legal experts have done a lot of research attempting to determine which, if any, individual juror traits are most likely to predict how that juror will vote at the end of the trial. Repeatedly, results of these studies have shown that the personality trait of authoritarianism frequently and consistently predicts juror verdict preferences in a broad range of case types more so than any other trait, characteristic or demographic ... People who are highly authoritarian typically hold traditional values (such as family values, personal accomplishments, family and national security and conservative religious organization), conform with conventional societal norms and idealize an orderly and powerful society. Because of this, they typically identify with mainstream society, submit to authority, faithfully follow leaders they perceive to be strong and expect everyone else to do the same. Identifying a juror with these tendencies does not tell you whether or not you want them on your jury. But you need to think ahead to the jury deliberation room because this personality type is likely to lead the discussion and be the jury foreperson. I tried a case in Noble County for four days, after which the jury deliberated for 12 hours from 10 a.m. until 10 p.m. I didn’t think the case was all that complicated and was concerned about the length of deliberations because I was representing the defendant, and long deliberations are typically not good for civil defendants. The jury finally emerged at 10 p.m. with a 9-3 defense verdict. A few days later, I ran into one of the jurors and asked the reason for the lengthy deliberation. She told me they first selected a foreman and immediately took a
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==