Maryland Pilot Voir Dire Program
For decades, Maryland has been one of five states using a limited voir dire process, which relies primarily on judges questioning prospective jurors. While attorneys may submit proposed questions for jurors, judges have broad discretion over the questions that are ultimately asked. This limited process has drawn criticism for being more restrictive compared to most jurisdictions in the country. For example, judges in Maryland typically only ask questions that go to a juror’s qualifications, such as bias, relationship with parties or witnesses and involvement in similar cases. This approach excludes broader inquiries that might uncover subtler biases, such as, attitudes toward police, racial biases and views on the justice system. Critics also argue that the restrictive nature of the limited voir dire process can impair a party’s constitutional rights, such as the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, by failing to effectively screen our biased jurors. In the civil context, the limited voir dire might not uncover opinions about tort reform or biases for or against corporations or healthcare providers.
In a recent case, Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), the Maryland Supreme Court examined whether a trial court violated a defendant’s constitutional rights by refusing to ask prospective jurors during voir dire whether they are willing to follow fundamental legal principles, such as the presumption of innocence, the defendant’s right not to testify, and the State’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court ruled that, yes, a defendant is entitled, upon request, to have the court ask potential jurors whether they are willing to follow fundamental constitutional principles. This ruling significantly expanded defendants’ rights during jury selection in Maryland. The Kazadi ruling also recognized that voir dire must serve as more than a formality, and must allow for real screening of disqualifying biases. Moreover, the ruling implicitly acknowledged that Maryland’s restrictive approach may have compromised defendants’ constitutional protections in the past.
In response to criticism and the significant expansion granted by Kazadi, Maryland launched a Pilot Program for Expanded Voir Dire under Rule 16-310 beginning in January 2025. The pilot is set to cover the full calendar year of 2025, and includes eight jurisdictions/circuit courts across Maryland and 22 judges in those jurisdictions. The program allows for significant procedural flexibility, including attorney-conducted voir dire, individual juror questioning, use of written questionnaires, and limited opening statements before questioning begins. Judges in the pilot retain full discretion and supervisory control, but for the first time in Maryland, voir dire is explicitly authorized not only to identify disqualifying bias but also to aid in the informed exercise of peremptory challenges. Participating judges are also collecting post-selection feedback from attorneys, which will be used to assess the program’s effectiveness and guide potential statewide reform. As of now, however, formal evaluations and stakeholder opinions are still forthcoming, and the full impact of the pilot remains to be seen.
For more information, contact Stephen Marshall, Esq.
