Threats to Impartiality in Capital Jury Selection: Addressing Dead-Serious Falsifications

The American Bar Association (ABA) filed an amicus brief1 in the Boston Marathon bombing case that took direct aim at current jury selection procedures within the context of highly publicized capital trials. It strongly recommended that knowledge about the case, including pretrial publicity, be carefully investigated. Moreover, the brief flatly stated that assertions of fairness and impartiality by venirepersons are “not reliable.”2 Is this true? What can social science tell us about the objectivity, truthfulness, and personal perspectives (e.g., biases or viewpoints) of potential jurors—in general, and on a case-by-case basis?