Anyone tried a murder where the old self defense law controlled but after last September? Did you talk about how the "Castle Doctrine" changes did not apply to your case or did you just not bring it up at all?

I think you'll get a lively discussion about self defense anyway. With or without an in depth analysis of pre and post new law differentiation. What is more important is when is 'shooting back' or 'shooting first' reasonable in the minds of your venire panel. I think affirmative defenses (and more especially self defense) are the absolute best time to 'loop' in your voir dire.

The only scripted question I'd use is: what is self defense? and then keep picking on people asking what they think of self defense and what the person or persons said before them. It's a very ripe and fertile opportunity to turn voir dire in to a guided discussion instead of simple question and answer.

I'd be interested in hearing what others do.

Just had the exact situation in a murder trial a few weeks ago. I did not mention the change, but I was prepared in case someone mentioned "castle doctrine" since it has been in the media lately. However, no one on the panel mentioned it so the issue was averted. I debated whether to go ahead and ask the question anyway in an attempt to identify the jurors who were pro-castle doctrine, but decided against it at the end. Please email me if you would like to discuss further.

Last December I tried a murder case from 1999 and I filed a Motion in Limine to prevent the defense from talking about it in voir dire. It never came up. But if it had, I was prepared to tell the panel that they'd be instructed under the old law and if they couldn't follow the Judge's instructions, they needed to tell me.