In the McMillan trial, incontrovertible evidence existed that a police officer grabbed the defendant's breast, hard enough to cause bruising, during an Occupy Wall Street demonstration that the police were trying to subdue. I question how the jury pool was influenced by the subject matter of Occupy Wall Street and demonstrations. Did they hold it against McMillan during her trial? Were they able to be honest with the attorneys and judge about their biases? Whether it's race, language, culture, gender, beliefs, religion, or any other difference, it's important for a jury to understand and identify with the defendant. Voir dire is an opportunity for the attorneys to see if there are any jurors biased against either side. In the past, attorneys cross examined the jury pool with leading questions that did not reveal bias. I believe the best way to uncover bias is to use a conversational, roundtable style that lends itself to sharing, listening, and honesty. That way, the defendant has the best chance of having a jury who will understand and identify with who the defendant is, what he/she experienced, and what lead up to the alleged crime.