The Jury Process

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/how-bias-shapes-juries/395957/

This is an interesting article on the processes of understanding jury biases and manipulations. This is an area of interest to me. It also points out the problem with folks who claim such processes will not affect their 'good shoot'. I recall a thread elsewhere where a poster claimed using a NFA weapon would have no effect on a jury as he (not a lawyer or a jury expert) said that your lawyer would simply tell the jury that your weapon is simply a tool and the judge might not allow the prosecution to point out the seemingly unusual characteristics of the weapon.

If a case is ambiguous, the research indicates that biases start to become potent in decision making. Of course, many claim their shoot will not be ambiguous - surely that will be true for you.

Glenn
 
The case need not be ambiguous at all. Here in Washington a killer of an entire family, two kids to grandparents, just got life instead of the death penalty because a minority of jurors who swore to be impartial and do their public duty were unable to get past their own personal opinions about the death penalty.

Don't delude yourself about similar verdicts in a 'good shoot', some people have visceral responses to guns and jury pools are not made up of objective pragmatists.
 
In my opinion, far more cases are won in voir dire than by the courtroom skills of the attorneys. If ever I were to face criminal or civil liability for something I'm accused of doing, the main criteria I will choose in selecting an attorney will be his/her skill in jury selection.
 
While I’m not a psychologist or an attorney I have served on a number of juries. As a matter of fact I just completed a Jury Summons Survey this morning after being summoned for the eighth time.

I agree choosing the jurors is an art and attorneys often hire experts to help in this process. Also, I will never cease to be amazed how 12 people can listen to the exact same evidence and reach significantly different conclusion. Another scary thing is that often the decision is based as much on the persuasive power of some members of the jury as on what happened in the court room. It really is scary and obviously the reason many people reach accept a plea bargain.
 
Glen, I read that article on the Jury Process and I couldn't disagree with it more. While its true that we all have biases and prejudices, some of which we may not even be fully aware of, the article completely ignores one key thing. Most people that would even show up for jury duty and don't try and find some reason to be excused want to do the right thing, have have a strong sense of their moral obligation to the process, and have deep desires to be fair (regardless of any personal biases). This means that most are fully capable of putting any prejudices and biases aside to listen to the facts presented and consider them in the light that they are instructed to do so.

Presuming that a person's biases and prejudices rule over every aspect of a person's ability to listen to facts and draw reasonable impartial conclusions is error. And, if you get some psychopath or KKK racist that slips through and even makes it into the jury pool, even a newbie lawyer will be able to flush that out and have them removed for cause. Of course, when it comes to felonies, there won't be any newbie lawyer assigned to the defendant. Public Defender or private, that lawyer will be well seasoned and will know what he's doing when it comes to picking a fair jury.
 
Most people that would even show up for jury duty and don't try and find some reason to be excused want to do the right thing, have have a strong sense of their moral obligation to the process, and have deep desires to be fair (regardless of any personal biases). This means that most are fully capable of putting any prejudices and biases aside to listen to the facts presented and consider them in the light that they are instructed to do so.
Click to expand...
Your faith in your fellow mankind is admirable enough, but I for one don't share it.
 
Glenn E. Meyer wrote: If a case is ambiguous, the research indicates that biases start to become potent in decision making.
Click to expand...

I only disagree with the is ambiguous part. If you have to face a D.A.'s office or Asst. D.A. with an agenda, the fact that you are now dealing with a jury lays taint at your feet. Even though there is sufficient evidence that you were within the bounds of the law, certain things in certain areas may be enough to paint you as the blood thirsty villian.

Here in So. Cal. use a bullet button AR to defend your home. Depending on where you are you may still go to trial. Me...personally, I would rather it be my coach gun than an AR if I have to face a jury.

I say this having been through the legal meat grinder...on the job....with councel on retainer by the employer... all permits in order... standard for the era video of hostile ambush / engagement ( 90's video left something to be desired)... and two bullets in my vest traced back to the gun of one of the choir boys (deceased) who had a list of previous stays with the government facilities..... and the subsequent investigation went on for well over a year with several threats of charges. And the best part... I was exempt from the Polygraph Act of 1988.

In the grand scheme of things at that time, I was ready to face a jury, but still knew that the political environment at that time was against me.
 
csmsss said:
In my opinion, far more cases are won in voir dire than by the courtroom skills of the attorneys. If ever I were to face criminal or civil liability for something I'm accused of doing, the main criteria I will choose in selecting an attorney will be his/her skill in jury selection.
Click to expand...
I've been called for jury duty and dismissed during voir dire twice -- perfect record. The circumstances perhaps illustrate the vagaries of the jury selection process.

The first time, the case was a personal injury case (automobile accident, I think, but that's not important). Void dire was conducted by the two attorneys, one (prospective) juror at a time. My turn came, the attorneys asked a few basic questions that didn't run up any red flags, and then one of them asked, "What do you think of our legal system?"

To which I replied, "I think it stinks."

Naturally, they wanted to know why, so I told them. "We're all sitting here so this young lady may possibly get a few dollars from an insurance company as compensation for injuries from which she may never recover. She may get nothing. But both attorneys will get paid an obscene amount of money per hour that most people can only dream about. That's what stinks."

I was excused.

The second time was even more fun. Preliminary voir dire was conducted with a group of jurors together. One of the questions asked was, "Would any of you have any problems following the judge's instructions regarding the law?"

Naturally, I raised my hand. I was the only one who did -- sad commentary on the state of our populace, IMHO.

One of the attorneys asked why. I told them I could not in good conscience follow a judge's "instructions" on the law if I disagreed with the judge's interpretation. At that point, they sent all the other prospective jurors back to the holding cell jury room, and proceeded to tag team me. They asked if I was unaware that the jury HAS to follow the judge's instructions. I asked them how it was they were unaware that the Supreme Court has said we DON'T.

Then they stuck me in a small closet anteroom for awhile. I could hear voices, but I couldn't understand what was being said. Apparently, they must have dispatched a bailiff to go find a judge, because after a few minutes I heard a female voice added to the mix, and then I was brought back into the courtroom to find a woman judge occupying the bench. She proceeded to ask me the same question, and I proceeded to give her the same answer. She then told me that I was mistaken, that I should go home and read up on history, and that I was dismissed.

So I went home, looked up Georgia v. Brailsford ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_(1794) ), and proceeded to write a letter to the judge pointing out that it was none other than the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who stated (to a jury) that the jury is ultimately the trier of the law as well as of the facts. I never got an answer from the judge, but I have a suspicion that my name has been blacklisted from the rolls of prospective jurors in my state.

The judges and the attorneys don't like jurors with brains.
 
The judges and the attorneys don't like jurors with brains.
Click to expand...
No, they do not. They want jurors with predictable prejudices/predispositions, or with malleable minds of mush they can easily sway to their side.

But if I'm facing civil or criminal charges, that's exactly what I want on my side. The most manipulative, leave no stone unturned hound dog with an eye for weakness and the knack for exploiting it I can hire.
 
No, they do not. They want jurors with predictable prejudices/predispositions, or with malleable minds of mush they can easily sway to their side.
Click to expand...

Maybe that s why every time I'm called for jury duty, they kick me loose.
 
rwilson452 said:
Maybe that s why every time I'm called for jury duty, they kick me loose.
Click to expand...
Probably. I've heard it said that if you actually want to serve on a jury you have to lie during voir dire. My mother sat on the jury for a fairly serious criminal case many years ago. I never asked her what kinds of questions were asked during voir dire, but Mom was a fairly non-critical thinker anyway. Probably just the type of person they like on juries.

And Mom would have had no trouble following a judge's instructions on the law. She always gave great deference to "authority." Hypothetical conversation:

"But, Mom, the law clearly says that what the guy did is legal."

"Well, the judge said it was illegal."
 
Aguila Blanca, your report a testament to the fact that the jury process actually works.

"What do you think of our legal system?"

To which I replied, "I think it stinks."

Naturally, they wanted to know why, so I told them. "We're all sitting here so this young lady may possibly get a few dollars from an insurance company as compensation for injuries from which she may never recover. She may get nothing. But both attorneys will get paid an obscene amount of money per hour that most people can only dream about. That's what stinks."
Click to expand...

Your presumption is wrong and it also shows bias. The Personal Injury attorney does not get paid an obscene amount of money per hour - he gets paid a percentage if he wins; he gets nothing if he loses. Most PI firms use a line of credit backed by personal guarantees of the partners to bankroll cases they decide to take to trial. The insurance defense attorney does get paid hourly, but his/her hourly rate will be less than 1/2 that of most other lawyers who bill on an hourly basis - typically around $120/hour, maybe less. That's right, the big insurance companies are good at putting the squeeze on lawyers as well as doctors when it comes to negotiated rates. But, they can do this because they provide a large volume of work to the defense law firm.

So, the attorney was right to have you removed from the jury pool. The process worked. What a nice example you have provided showing this!

Hey, I was once picked for a prospective jury and going through voir dire as well. I was young and didn't know much. It was a personal injury trial where the plaintiff was seeking loss of consortium for the wife. I was asked whether I could award money for loss of consortium to the wife if it was proven that due to the injury that the husband could no longer have sex with his wife. I answered "no way - I could award money to the husband for his injuries, but the wife was not injured, so I can't see ever giving her any money; if the husband wants to share his award with her that was his business..." I got tossed off and got a little lecture from the judge as well. At the time I thought "what a bunch of greedy $#%^'s". I'm older now and have lived a lot more life. I see why my response was moronic. I deserved to get tossed from the jury pool and also deserved the lecture from, the judge.
 
Last edited:
Public Defender or private, that lawyer will be well seasoned and will know what he's doing when it comes to picking a fair jury.
Click to expand...

If the client is guilty, the last thing the lawyer wants is a fair jury or a smart juror.
 
In my opinion, far more cases are won in voir dire than by the courtroom skills of the attorneys. If ever I were to face criminal or civil liability for something I'm accused of doing, the main criteria I will choose in selecting an attorney will be his/her skill in jury selection.
Click to expand...

The better thing is to agree to hire a good jury consultant. Best money you can spend.

Studies show that the juries typically have lots of trouble understanding the legal issue instructions from the judge.
Click to expand...
In their defense, jury instructions can be really bad.
 
Last edited:
I just finished jury duty and the biggest hangup we had was some of the people didn't understand the instructions or the definitions of the laws and how it applied to the case.
 
That's true, ZincWarrior - folks have tried to have instructions written in plain language and printed so they can be taken to the jury room. Judges can be resistant as they feel if they deviate from statute, they will be seen as prejudicial and reversed.

Also, jury members fixate on the opening story and then choose what to focus on during the rest of the trial.

Instructions to ignore XYZ sometimes make the jury pay more attention to it.
 
The better thing is to agree to hire a good jury consultant. Best money you can spend.
Click to expand...
I probably should have worded my initial statement more carefully to include that. I was primarily thinking of attorneys who work closely with jury consultants but I did not specify it.
 
I was once being questioned for a jury and was asked what was the greatest thing about the American jury system.

My answer was " Jury Nullification" DISMISSED!!!

AFS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top