2022 Georgia Code
Title 15 - Courts
Chapter 12 - Juries
Article 5 - Trial Juries
Part 1 - In General
§ 15-12-133. Right to Individual Examination of Panel; Matters of Inquiry

In all civil cases, the parties thereto shall have the right to an individual examination of the panel of prospective jurors from which the jury is to be selected, without interposing any challenge. In all criminal cases, both the state and the accused shall have the right to an individual examination of each prospective juror from which the jury is to be selected prior to interposing a challenge. The examination shall be conducted after the administration of a preliminary oath to the panel or in criminal cases after the usual voir dire questions have been put by the court. In the examination, the counsel for either party shall have the right to inquire of the individual prospective jurors examined touching any matter or thing which would illustrate any interest of the prospective juror in the case, including any opinion as to which party ought to prevail, the relationship or acquaintance of the prospective juror with the parties or counsel therefor, any fact or circumstance indicating any inclination, leaning, or bias which the prospective juror might have respecting the subject matter of the action or the counsel or parties thereto, and the religious, social, and fraternal connections of the prospective juror.

History. Ga. L. 1949, p. 1082, § 2; Ga. L. 1951, p. 214, § 2; Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-53/HB 415.

Cross references.

Voir dire, Uniform Superior Court Rules, Rule 10.1.

Editor’s notes.

Ga. L. 2011, p. 59, § 1-1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Jury Composition Reform Act of 2011.’ ”

Law reviews.

For annual survey of criminal law, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 129 (1986).

For comment, “Batson v. Kentucky: Equal Protection, the Fair Cross-Section Requirement, and the Discriminatory Use of Peremptory Challenges,” see 37 Emory L.J. 755 (1988).

For article, “Death Penalty Law,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 233 (2001).

For note, “Friends and Foes in the Jury Box: Walls v. Kim and the Mission to Stop Improper Juror Rehabilitation,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 929 (2002).

For article, “Practitioner’s Note Jury Selection: Whose Job Is It, Anyway?,” see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 617 (2007).

For annual survey on death penalty, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 93 (2013).

For article, “Voir Dire in the #LOL Society: Jury Selection Needs Drastic Updates to Remain Relevant in the Digital Age,” see 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 459 (2014).