Prospective jurors in the 252nd District Court were questioned at length about impartiality, the presumption of innocence and whether they could consider the full punishment range if a guilty verdict were returned. Judge Raquel West opened the panel and instructed the group about qualifications; the state's attorney, identified in court as "Mister Coleman," reviewed the elements of the charged offense under Chapter 22 of the Texas Penal Code and explained that jurors must apply their ordinary meaning to "penetration" because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not provided a statutory definition.

Defense counsel "Mister Gertz" conducted extended voir dire, asking each juror whether they could presume innocence, apply the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard and seriously consider the statutory punishment range — including the option of probation. Multiple jurors said they could not consider probation or otherwise had strong emotional or experiential reasons that might affect their service; the defense indicated it would recall several of those jurors for further questioning at sidebar. "If you and 11 other jurors have listened to all the evidence…and you believe the state's allegations beyond a reasonable doubt…The question is, can you consider probation in that context?" Gertz asked.

Counsel framed the selection as a deselection process: both sides have peremptory strikes and challenges to remove jurors who cannot follow the law. The court and counsel emphasized jurors' duty to use common sense in evaluating witness credibility and explained that single-witness testimony can be sufficient if the jury finds it credible beyond a reasonable doubt. The court scheduled short breaks and directed staff to bring back jurors the parties identified for additional questioning.