Reading comp PrepTest 104 · Section 3 · Question 3

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • The expansion of mass media coverage of judicial cases has led to difficulty in empaneling impartial juries.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Impossible to find potential jurors who are unaware of the details of cases arising from happenings in their communities (first sentence)
  • It is believed that people who haven’t heard any information about a case and therefore have no prejudices to set aside are more impartial jurors (second sentence)
  • Problem: Empaneling an impartial jury each member of which hasn’t previously been exposed to mass media coverage of a case is nearly impossible (first and second sentences)
  • Author’s attitude: “virtually impossible” (first sentence); “generally believed” (second sentence); “more desirable” (second sentence); “daunting task” (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Judges use different venues and specific jury instructions to minimize jury partiality, but critics charge these techniques are ineffective.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Judges believe in changes of venue and jury instructions as effective tools against jury partiality (second sentence)
  • Critics believe these techniques are ineffective (second sentence)
    • Changes of venue don’t make any difference because jurors will hear mass media coverage of a case anyway (third sentence)
    • Jury instructions can’t prevent jurors from letting what they’ve gleaned from media coverage of a case creep into their courtroom deliberations (fourth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “judges are convinced” (second sentence); “critics have concluded” (second sentence); “the critics argue” (third sentence); “they claim” (fourth sentence); “‘mental contortions’” (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Judges often use voir dire to determine whether potential jurors are impartial, but critics charge that even this method of weeding out partial jurors is ineffective.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Most judges use voir dire, a process by which they interview jurors to determine whether they are impartial in a particular case (first sentence)
  • Critics believe this is unreliable (second sentence)
    • Some potential jurors mask their prejudices (third sentence)
    • Other potential jurors exaggerate their prejudices to seem partial and avoid jury duty (third sentence)
    • Some potential jurors underestimate their own partiality due to mass media coverage of the case (fourth sentence)
    • Judges’ questions are weighted to elicit a desired response (fifth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “critics charge” (second sentence); “unreliable” (second sentence); “for a number of reasons” (second sentence); “they argue” (third sentence); “confess untruthfully” (third sentence); “claiming ignorance” (fourth sentence); “indicate a desired response” (fifth sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Juror partiality is impossible to eradicate; indeed, it is deliberation among many jurors who may be well aware of mass media coverage of a case that will lead to impartiality.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Some countries like Canada and the UK have abandoned voir dire in all but a few circumstances because it is ineffective (first sentence)
  • Recasting of Problem: Eliminating all methods designed to detect juror partiality does not solve the problem of juror partiality; it just recognizes that ignorance of the details of cases is impossible in the mass media age (second-third sentences)
  • Solution: recast “impartiality” as a trait arising from deliberations between a representative group of citizen-jurors who have been exposed to mass media coverage of a case.
  • Author’s attitude: “seriously enough” (first sentence); “recognizes” (third sentence); “virtual impossibility” (third sentence); “truly impartial” (fourth sentence); “informed citizens” (fourth sentence); “community’s collective experience” (fourth sentence); “results from a process” (fifth sentence)

Main Point: The problem of how to achieve jury impartiality will not be solved by attempting to empanel jurors who are individually impartial, but rather by acknowledging that it is the deliberations between jurors who may have been exposed to mass media coverage of cases that will achieve impartiality in the jury as a whole.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 (P1 S2) - Statement of problem

P2 S2 - Usual solutions ineffective

P4 S3 - Recasting of the problem with new definition of “impartiality”

P4 S4-5 - Solution

Problem/Solution: This passage uses a Problem/Solution Meta-Structure. The problem the passage addresses is the difficulty of identifying jurors who are impartial in criminal cases that have been widely covered by the media. The passage describes three major methods that judges use to weed out partial jurors, and the author uses criticisms of each one to discard them as solutions to the problem. Finally, having reached the conclusion that it is impossible to empanel a jury entirely made up of individuals who are impartial and ignorant of media coverage of a case, the author recasts the problem. The author then presents their solution: change the definition of “impartial” to apply to a jury as a whole rather than to each individual juror. As long as the jury as a whole reflects the various experiences of the community, media knowledge and all, they can be considered impartial due to the deliberations they will engage in.

The minor Meta-Structure used in this passage is List. The author, after identifying the problem, lays out three solutions that are often used and shoots each one down. Then, they lay out their own solution.

The author’s attitude throughout this passage is clear and unequivocal; they are critical of all existing solutions to the problem of empaneling an impartial jury and supportive of the solution they advocate. Thus, according to the author, it is impossible to empanel a jury all of whose members are individually impartial, but it should be recognized that, as long as the jury as a whole engages in deliberations, it can be considered collectively impartial.

This is a passage with a clear author viewpoint that is well-organized and comprehensible. Keeping an eye on the author’s opinion is paramount to digesting this passage, and since the author often speaks through the “critics” they mention, it is important to keep track of what the critics say about traditional methods of weeding out partial jurors. In the matter of an ultimate solution to the impartiality problem, it is the author’s own voice that is used, not anyone else’s, and it is there that we can most clearly see the author’s opinion.