In case anyone is curious about what the jury is up to right now, I found an interesting article about jury deliberations that I wanted to share.
Apparently, there is an organization known as the Jury Research Institute, which, among other things, convenes mock trials for juries and then monitors their deliberations afterward. Fascinating stuff. Here’s a bit from the article:
“In looking at the panel as a whole, the relative participation of each group member will fall into three broad categories. Generally, on any panel of 12 individuals, social science research has revealed that there tends to be three or four “persuaders” in the group. These individuals make over 50% of the affirmative statements during the deliberations. They tend to be the ones who build coalitions and are responsible for most of the introduction of new issues for the jury’s consideration. Thus, although there might be “one foreperson” the focal discussions are really devided amongst the three or four persuaders. In fact, when a foreperson is ineffective in handling the organization of the deliberations, a secondary foreperson tends to emerge informally and take on the role of the foreperson, without ever actually being identified as such. The next group of individuals in the jury deliberation room are the “participants.” These six to eight individuals tend to be active and participate in the discussions, but they usually have opinions in reaction to statements made by the leaders. They tend to be the joiners, and will follow and support other members, but generally don’t tend to build coalitions themselves. Finally, there is a group of three or four individuals known as the “non-participants.” These individuals are uninterested in being on the jury, and/or are uncomfortable speaking up. Their primary concerns are, “How long is this going to take?,” and “If you need another vote to get a majority, you can count me in.” Thus, an awareness of the relative role of each juror may be helpful for counsel in tailoring closings and narrowing the size of the target audience that must be deeply engaged in counsel’s argument.
-snip-
urors…often will start with a complete review of the verdict form, although jurors won’t necessarily start with question number one. Rarely are words like “preponderance of the evidence,” or “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” uttered during jury deliberations. Instead we hear phrases like, “Well, do you think the plaintiff is entitled to anything?,” “Well, does it seem like this is a bad product?” “Well, what’s your inclination? Are we going with the plaintiff or the defendant?” Observers rarely hear a juror say, “Do you feel the evidence presented establishes the liability of the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence?” Attorneys often speak to one another with references to the burden of proof, and whether there is sufficient evidence to “prove up a point.” In particular, when there are different standards of proof required (e.g., clear and convincing evidence), attorneys feel more anxious over whether they will reach this “threshold” with jurors. As a matter of course, jurors rarely make distinctions along these lines. Their evaluations are from a perspective of what is “fair” and what is “right,” or how the case “ought to come out.” They do not weigh evidence against some legalistic scale of “clear and convincing evidence” versus “preponderance of the evidence.”
-snip-
It is interesting to note that jurors are very willing to interpret the evidence. Rather than accepting the conclusions presented by witnesses, jurors generally feel they have sufficient expertise to be able to judge the issues themselves. This is especially true when “experts” emerge on the jury panel. These tend to be individuals who have some experience, however remote, with the issues at hand, and therefore assert some unusual authority in the jury deliberation. For example, on many breach of contract cases we have seen jurors with experience signing a sales contract to purchase their home use this as the basis for their “expertise” on commercial construction contracts. Attorneys need to be on the lookout during jury selection for background experiences among jurors that may remotely touch upon the issues in the case. If it is a product defect case, it is important to find out if jurors have ever asserted any complaints to a manufacturer, whether they have ever returned a product to a store for a refund, and certainly whether they have ever been exposed to any type of dangerous situation they thought could have been the fault of a product. Counsel needs to know who the potential “experts” in the deliberation room might be. Over and over, we see jurors discount the conclusions of the experts by saying that each side hired their own gun. They do, however, take into account what the experts say. Therefore, whether your expert has better credentials than an opposing expert may not be as important as the expert’s ability to communicate effectively. The expert who can actually teach the jurors the issues and make a technical case understandable to lay individuals, will be the one most mimicked in the jury deliberation room. In fact, if an expert can use analogies that fit with jurors’ everyday experiences to explain theories of liability, he or she is likely to be quoted often in the jury deliberation room. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily the most knowledgeable expert who is the most persuasive. Rather, it is the expert who can create the most comprehensible sound bites for the jury to embrace.”
Here’s a link to the full article:
http://www.jri-inc.com/article3.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
