Ask ten trial lawyers how they decide whom to strike and you will hear ten versions of the same answer: "I read the room." That is not a dodge. Reading people is a real skill, and it gets sharper with every trial.
The problem is not instinct. The problem is that instinct applied to forty people over three hours is not applied evenly. The juror you interviewed at 9:15 gets the full benefit of your attention. The juror at 11:40 gets what is left. A scoring framework does not replace your read; it makes sure every juror gets the same one.
Start with the case, not the jurors
The most common mistake is to evaluate jurors against a generic idea of "good for the defense" or "good for the plaintiff." There is no such juror. There is only a juror who is good or bad for this case, with these themes, against this opponent.
Before you look at a single name, write down three to six case-specific criteria. Each should be a plain-language sentence you could explain to a colleague. For a mistaken-identity defense:
- Skeptical of single-witness identification
- Has experienced a rushed or incomplete investigation
- Comfortable holding the State to its burden even when the defendant does not testify
- Watch for: close ties to law enforcement
- Watch for: prior victim of a similar offense
Notice that the "watch for" items are not automatic strikes. They are prompts to ask a follow-up question. A juror whose sibling is a police officer may be the most skeptical person in the room about a sloppy investigation, because she has heard about them at the dinner table.
Weight the criteria before voir dire, not during
Once the criteria are written, decide how much each one matters. Keep it simple: high, medium, low. The point is to make the decision when you are calm, so that in the courtroom you are applying a standard rather than inventing one.
If you use StrikeList AI, this is the case-setup step. If you use a legal pad, put the criteria and their weights at the top of the first page and refer back to them for every juror.
Score every juror on every criterion
Here is the discipline that matters: for each juror, note something on every criterion, even if the note is "no information." A blank is not the same as a neutral. A blank means you did not get there, and it is the blanks that produce inconsistent strikes.
A simple approach that works on paper:
| Criterion | Weight | Juror 3 | Juror 11 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skeptical of single-witness ID | High | Said eyewitnesses "usually get it right" | Described mistaking a stranger for a friend |
| Experienced an incomplete investigation | High | No information | Car theft, 2022, never solved |
| Comfortable with the burden | Medium | Agreed presumption matters | Agreed presumption matters |
| Law-enforcement ties | High (negative) | Spouse is a retired officer | None found |
With this in front of you, the peremptory decision between Juror 3 and Juror 11 is no longer a feeling. It is a comparison you can articulate, and, if necessary, defend.
Write the reason when you strike, not afterward
The last piece of the framework is the one most often skipped. When you exercise a peremptory, write one sentence explaining why, at that moment. Not a paragraph. One sentence, tied to a criterion and to something the juror said or something in the record.
Two reasons this matters. First, it keeps you honest with your own framework: if you cannot tie a strike to a criterion, you should ask yourself what is actually driving it. Second, if your strikes are challenged under Batson v. Kentucky or its state analogues, a contemporaneous, criterion-based reason is far more persuasive than one reconstructed at sidebar.
Use it for seating decisions too
A framework built only for strikes misses half its value. Jurors you decide to keep deserve the same articulated reasoning, because the jury you seat is the jury you have to persuade. When the panel is sworn, look at the scored list one more time and ask: which of my themes does this particular group need to hear first? That question is the beginning of your opening statement.
The framework in one page
- Write three to six case-specific criteria in plain language, before you see the venire.
- Weight each one high, medium or low.
- Score every juror on every criterion. Never leave a blank.
- Compare jurors side by side when you must choose between strikes.
- Write a one-sentence, criterion-based reason for each peremptory, at the moment you use it.
- Reread the scored panel before opening.
None of this requires software. All of it is faster with it. Either way, the goal is the same: your judgment, applied the same way to the first juror and the fourteenth.
StrikeList AI applies your criteria to every juror, automatically.
Buy a single trial and start today, or request a short demo to see the workflow on a real panel.