Words by Mark: The Impropriety of Juror Rehabilitation During Voir Dire

As trial lawyers in Florida, we’ve all seen it happen: a prospective juror openly admits to bias or a preconceived opinion. For a moment, it looks like a clear and proper cause challenge. 

But then the court steps in. 

A series of leading, rehabilitative questions follow, and suddenly the juror begins to hedge, saying things like, “I think I can try to be fair” or “I’ll do my best.” The challenge is denied, and now you’re left with a juror who has already admitted they are not impartial.

This practice—judicial rehabilitation of biased jurors—arises with troubling frequency. It undermines the very purpose of voir dire: to identify jurors who are not “indifferent to the action,” as Florida law requires. When judges step in to rehabilitate a juror who has already expressed bias, it threatens the fundamental right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

Let’s revisit what the law actually says and how Florida courts have consistently applied it.

The Rule: Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.431(c)

Rule 1.431(c) is clear: a juror must be excused for cause if they have formed or expressed an opinion, or if they show any bias or prejudice. The standard is not whether a juror is perfect. It is whether they “stand indifferent to the action.” If they do not, they must be excused.

This is not discretionary. The rule and the case law interpreting it are unequivocal.

The Case Law: A Consistent Message from Florida Courts

Nearly a century ago, in Johnson v. Reynolds, 121 So. 793 (Fla. 1929), the Florida Supreme Court articulated a principle that remains binding today:

“It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the reasoning which leads to the conclusion that a person stands free of bias or prejudice who, having voluntarily and emphatically asserted its existence in his mind, in the next moment under skillful questioning declares his freedom from its influence.”

The Court held that the trial judge erred in denying a cause challenge after the juror initially admitted bias, even though the same juror later claimed he could “be fair.”

More recent decisions echo this point:

• Williams v. State, 638 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994): A juror admitted “deep feelings” and doubts about impartiality. Despite the trial court’s attempts to rehabilitate, the appellate court reversed, finding the effort improper.
• Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989): The court held that a juror’s assurance they “can set aside” bias does not cure earlier admissions of prejudice—especially when those assurances are prompted by the judge.
• Hagerman v. State, 613 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993): A juror explicitly said she could not be fair. The court’s leading rehabilitation questions were deemed insufficient, and the appellate court reversed.

Across these cases, the principle is clear: a juror’s later claim that they “will try” to be fair cannot erase an earlier admission of bias. The hope of impartiality is not enough.

The Practical Reality in the Courtroom

We all know the dynamics. When a judge speaks, jurors often feel pressure to give the “right” answer, especially in response to leading questions. Even when a juror sincerely believes they can try to be fair, that does not meet the legal requirement that they are fair and impartial.

This is why judicial rehabilitation is so problematic. It risks leaving biased jurors on the panel and forces litigants to waste peremptory strikes on challenges that should have been granted for cause.

Best Practices for Preserving the Record

1. Pin Down the Bias Clearly: When a juror admits bias, slow down. Ask follow-up questions to confirm and eliminate ambiguity.
2. Object Promptly to Rehabilitation Efforts: If the court begins to rehabilitate, object. Cite the cases above and emphasize that leading questions from the bench carry little weight in assessing impartiality.
3. Preserve the Issue for Appeal: If your cause challenge is denied, exhaust peremptories, request an additional strike, and make a clear record of the juror you were forced to keep.

Voir Dire Must Be Conducted Fairly—or It Protects Nothing

Voir dire is not just a procedural formality. It is the mechanism by which we protect the right to a fair trial. If a juror discloses a bias, that bias cannot be undone by the court’s well-intentioned questioning. The law does not permit rehabilitation that defies common sense or contradicts a juror’s earlier admission.

Judges play a vital role in voir dire, but that role must respect the boundary between clarification and persuasion. When the line is crossed, the integrity of the jury is at stake.