Link This has been on the news quite a bit here in the Chicago area, but obviously has wider-ranging implications. Jurors from the recent trial of former Gov. George Ryan have been investigated by defense attorneys (after a guilty verdict was returned) for any sort of potential civil or criminal history, with the attorneys running background checks on the jurors. Much of this hinges on how the jurors completed a lengthy pre-trial questionnaire, for which I can't locate the exact length, but judging by what I've seen on TV, it looks to be 6-10 pages long. Perhaps it's just me, but the jury pool is made up of people from all walks of life - varying educational backgrounds, varied command of the English language, and obviously varied ability to interpret lengthy questionnaires like this. I'd think that if we're going to give such a wide variety of people a lengthy questionnaire subject to some interpretation, then we'd also better provide legal aides to help them clearly understand and answer the questions consistently. The jury system is under enough scrutiny as it is - now if jurors need to be concerned that if they are picked for a high-profile trial they will not only have to sacrifice pay, time with their families, and suffer other personal inconveniences, they will be subject to background checks and other attacks as though they were the ones on trial. While I can see why we'd want to make sure we have as impartial a jury as possible, those efforts should be completed before the trial, not during and after. Otherwise this could threaten the ability of the jury system to perform its intended purpose effectively. This is the first time I've ever heard of something like this, at least to this extent. I'm I missing something? Is this a common occurrence?