Current voir dire methods are generally anachronistic and fraught with inherent procedural limitations which, in a major litigation, may severely restrict the advocate's opportunity to probe the complexities of modern life which affect the social and psychological framework of the American juror. Under present law in most jurisdictions, the trial judge has the prerogative to either conduct voir dire himself/herself or to allow trial counsel the freedom to perform their own voir dire. Advances in the social sciences and jury analysis techniques have caused trial advocates to urge trial courts to permit expanded voir dire to assist counsel in addressing the increased diverseness and sophistication of the modern juror. The courts have largely resisted such innovations. Voir dire through systematic jury analysis begins with a case review, including an analysis of probable trial strategy and an analysis of anticipated factual conflicts in evidence and juror reactions to such conflicts. Through such devices as community analyses, area surveys, and mock jury trial simulations, the advocate can test, reform, analyze, and refine trial strategy and tailor voir dire questions and technique to the particular case. This article describes an experiment conducted with a mock jury in a major police abuse/civil rights case involving the Philadelphia Police Department and its effect on the litigant's trial strategy regarding voir dire. 43 footnotes and a confidential jurors' questionnaire.