Ineffective voir dire is a problem in courtrooms all over the country – a problem so obvious that it encourages reformists to make suggestions for sweeping change that would do more harm than good. Abolishing peremptory challenges is one such example of a “remedy” that completely fails to address the real issue, which is that lawyers learning little about jurors during the selection process.Although trial lawyers feel that there is no voir dire in New Jersey, the “struck method” is an excellent set-up for what could potentially be effective voir dire. Instead of questioning 30-50 jurors at a time, the clerk randomly selects the number of jurors needed for the case. These jurors are seated in the jury box while the remaining jurors listen, in case they are selected to replace an excused juror.In theory, when compared to voir dire that questions large numbers of jurors all at once, this process allows litigants to learn more. Since jurors are questioned on an as-needed basis, more substantive areas can be covered in a time-efficient way. This approach helps mitigate at least one obstacle that inhibits jurors: Instead of sitting anonymously in a crowded courtroom, jurors seated in the box know that…