Jury Selection: Strategy & Science, by Ted A. Donner and Richard Gabriel (Thomson-Reuters ©2001-2019, Supplemented annually), is a comprehensive text designed for use by lawyers and trial consultants involved in the process of examining prospective jurors in cases of all sizes and levels of complexity.

In addition to covering the applicable law on challenges, appropriate questioning on voir dire, and other areas of concern to lawyers preparing for trial, the text includes a number of sample voir dire transcripts and discussions with experienced litigators and trial consultants regarding their perspectives on how particular problems should be handled. Each transcript is drawn from a published appellate court opinion, allowing for a comparison of the practitioners' perspective with that of the appellate court panel which eventually decided each case. The book features an array of practice pointers on form and the various types of questions, permissible areas of inquiry, the effective use of challenges and the significance of group dynamics. Jury Selection: Strategy & Science, 3d Edition, can also be searched on Westlaw.  The book appears at JURYSELECT in the Litigation Library, under Practice Materials. 

Here is a sampling of court citations to Jury Selection: Strategy & Science:

Zia Shadows, L.L.C. v. City of Las Cruces, 829 F.3d 1232, 1246–47 (10th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e cannot conclude that government employment, standing alone, bars a prospective juror from serving in a case involving the government employer. But in reaching this conclusion, we by no means hold that a government employee could never be found impliedly biased on the basis of that employment. For example, this court has frequently referred to Justice O’Connor’s observation that a juror who is ‘an actual employee of the prosecuting agency’ might present the sort of ‘extreme situation’ that would call for an implication of bias.... Such circumstances may also exist where... the potential juror is an employee of the very agency or department whose conduct or interests are at issue in the case [or] through the use of careful follow-up questions, counsel seeking to disqualify a juror may be able to establish actual bias. See Ted A. Donner & Richard Gabriel, Jury Selection Strategy and Science, § 32.1 (3d ed. 2015–16)”).

Pena-Rodriguez v. State of Colorado,  petition for writ of certiorari, pg. 23 ("[T]here  are  inherent  limitations  on  the capacity of voir dire to prevent racial bias from entering  the  jury  room  in  the  first  place. ... [W]hen defendants are permitted to inquire specifically into racial biases, even the Colorado Supreme  Court  recognized  that  defense  counsel  is often  well  advised  not  to  pose  such  direct  questions.  Pet.  App.  11a  n.5.    For  one  thing,  such  inquiries 'might  be  viewed  as  insulting  to  jurors  or  as  raising an issue defense counsel does not want to highlight.'  Villar,  586  F.3d  at  87  n.5;  see  also  Ted  A.  Donner  &  Richard K. Gabriel, Jury Selection Strategy and Science  § 34:1  (3d  ed.  2014)  (“Race  and  gender  bias may  be  appropriate  reasons  for  excusing  prospective jurors, but the subjects should probably not be specifically  addressed,  in  any  voir  dire,  unless  the facts of the case suggest that racism could be a dispositive factor.”). 

Graham v. All American Cargo Elevator, Slip Copy, 2013 WL 5604373 (S.D.Miss. 2013) (“It is thus generally held that, although attorneys may pursue questions intended to probe potential jurors' bias or prejudice towards matters connected to the case, ‘they should not ask questions which tend to stake out or pin down a juror as to what his or her decision would be under a given set of facts.’ Ted A. Donner & Richard K. Gabriel, Jury Selection Strategy and Science § 18.2, 3d ed.2000") 

State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wash.2d 34, 309 P.3d 326 (Wash. 2013) (“With limited information and time, and a lack of any reliable way to determine the subtle biases of each prospective juror, attorneys tend to rely heavily on stereotypes and generalizations in deciding how to exercise peremptory challenges. See, e.g., Ted A. Donner & Richard K. Gabriel, Jury Selection: Strategy and Science 1–7 to 1–8, 3d ed. 2007") 

U.S. v. Jadlowe, 628 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (“Specifically with respect to the bar on juror discussions about the case while the trial is ongoing, it has been observed that the prohibition is ‘based upon historical assumption rather than any real understanding as to how task-oriented groups actually render decisions or how discussions prior to the jury instructions would actually be likely to impact that process.’ Ted A. Donner & Richard K. Gabriel, Jury Selection Strategy and Science § 39:3, 3d ed. & Supp. 2010")  

U.S. v. Fambro, 526 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008) (“A majority of states appear to prohibit hypothetical questions to prospective jurors on voir dire to determine how they would decide fact issues in a case. Ted A. Donner & Richard K. Gabriel, Jury Selection Strategy and Science § 18:2, 3d ed. 2006”)

From the New York Times: Illinois Trial in Graft Case is Thrown Into Ferment (March 28, 2006): Ted A. Donner, co-author of the law text ‘Jury Selection Strategy and Science,’ which was referred to in the defense's objection to using alternate jurors [in the trial of Governor George Ryan] said, ‘"It's one thing to hear a piece of testimony and have a judge tell you to disregard that.... It's another thing to disregard an entire week's discussion that you've had with 11 other people.”

We try to remind every client who comes through our doors that a negotiated settlement can prove a better result than even a favorable jury verdict. Depending upon what the parties are able or willing to do, it often makes more sense to focus on securing an immediate, agreed upon resolution than incur the cost and delay of protracted litigation. That's why we always prepare for trial and are always willing to talk -- just as we're always willing to consider the possibility of involving a good mediator in whatever disputes our clients are in.

Following is a review from The Alternative Newsletter, Institute for Dispute Resolution (Seton Hall); Reprinted in ABA’s Dispute Resolution Magazine:

Donner, Ted A., and Crowe, Brian J., Attorney's Practice Guide to Negotiations (2d Ed.), Clark Boardman Callaghan, 155 Pfingsten Rd., Deerfield, IL 60015-4998 (1088pp *** 1995)

The Attorney's Practice Guide to Negotiation proves, somewhat to my surprise to be a truly first class contribution to the negotiation practice literature. I say "to my surprise" because many of the practitioner books in this area are longwinded without providing a serious guidance to the reader. Donner and Crowe's work is certainly lengthy, but it combines good writing with thoughtful analysis and effective presentation to qualify it as a valuable purchase for any attorney, novice or experienced.

The work is, as most legal professional books are, a compilation with individual chapters written by separate authors. The test of such a book is whether the editorial control exercised by the primary author/editors was adequate to maintain a consistency of style and approach sufficient to make the product into a book rather than a collected reader, and whether the quality overall is such as to recommend it. In this case both tests are met with flying colors, a fact made more impressive by the subject matter which prevents the kind of formal standardization that is appropriate in some areas of legal writing.

The book is divided into 10 sections made up of 44 chapters. The first two sections (14 chapters) provide an overview of the negotiation process with a clear emphasis on, but not exclusive coverage of, the attorney's role in the process. The analysis is quite detailed, but never falls into the trap of becoming so case specific that it loses sight of the fact that these are general principles that will have to be applied in a wide range of settings. Especially impressive is the strong focus on ethical issues and the consistent attention to the responsibility of the attorney to place the client's interests first.

The third and fourth sections of the book focus on negotiation in litigation and ADR settings. They put litigation in context as a dispute resolution mechanism and address specifically, in separate chapters, personal injury and matrimonial litigation and mediation as settings for negotiation. The remaining sections each examine a specific area of law or setting in which negotiation will take place. Negotiations with the government looks at plea bargaining, administrative settings, tax and bankruptcy, while negotiating across borders looks at admiralty and international issues. The other sections are more focused, addressing respectively employment issues, commercial transactions, real property and intellectual property.

Perhaps the most effective and valuable sections of the book are the chapters, which exist in each section, which present round table discussions amongst experts in the area. These round table discussions are based on model cases which are carefully selected and well designed to bring out the kinds of problems that the reader might well face. The discussants are highly professional, always keeping a weather eye out to assure ethical conduct, but also extremely practical in providing suggestions of approaches that may be useful to overcome difficulties that can arise in such negotiations.

This is a book that I can recommend highly to any attorney, and indeed to anyone else who is regularly involved in active negotiations. It is too long to be read from cover to cover, but the general chapters are not overwhelming, and the opportunity to read in detail the chapters in one's area of practice and to dip into others is very attractive.

-Prof. James B. Boskey