There was an interesting article in the New Yorker earlier this year about jury selection in the Enron trial. It featured a questionnaire written, in party, by jury consultant Robert B. Hirschhorn. A quote--
The form asks jurors whether they watch Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, “MarketWatch,” or “Boston Legal.” It wants to know if they read Fortune, Forbes, or the Wall Street Journal. One of Hirschhorn’s “signature questions” is to ask jurors to name the three people they most admire. In this case, he says, “George Bush would be a draw.” He wants to know whether they handle their families’ finances. (“People who make those decisions are the C.E.O. and C.O.O. of their own homes.”) Further, are they good financial stewards, or did they trust people they shouldn’t have, as Ken Lay insists that he did? The questionnaire puts it this way: “Have you or your spouse lost a significant amount of money in the stock market in the past ten years? If yes, please explain what happened.”
Questions like these can be a great aid in jury selection, but only if potential jurors answer honestly. Will they? Some experts say you shouldn't assume the answer is yes. On the other hand, narrow, fact-specific inquiries on a questionnaire are less likely to lead to fudging one way or the other, especially if jurors aren't certain what their answers are "supposed" to be. It's one of the reasons questionnaires are very popular with some lawyers, especially in high-damage cases.