The strategies that both prosecution and defense use to ensure an optimal jury pool is selected can be seen during voir dire. The prosecution and defense are able to craft questions that will either accentuate a juror that can help their case, or a juror whose presence would endanger it. Given the fact that both sides possess the ability to ask for a juror to be removed based on the belief of juror bias is a strategy that can also be used. The court, itself, can issue the questions and there is a wide latitude given in asking questions of a potential juror in voir dire. I think that this becomes another strategy that can be used to ensure the best juror for both prosecution and defense emerges. It is the combination of knowing what questions to ask and also hearing to recognize which answers might not benefit one's side that ends up formulating the strategies employed during voir dire to ensure that the best juror is illuminated for both prosecution and defense. Effective jurisprudence rests on both sides specifically strategizing as to which juror will be able to deliver an objective judgment, and this can be best seen in the voir dire process.