It’s not to say that “nice” jurors won’t convict, but at least they’ll give your client a fair shot. Toni Messina has been practicing criminal defense law since 1990, although during law school she spent one summer as an intern in a large Boston law firm and realized quickly it wasn’t for her.
Yes, the first technique is arguably the simplest. Make eye contact with the jury when you’re talking to them. You don’t actually get to talk directly to the jury that often in a trial, so it’s vitally important when you do that you make it count.
But despite that, juries can listen to both attorneys with an open mind, and think about the issues objectively. I say “can” because if a jury is particularly skeptical about an attorney, that attorney has to work doubly hard to overcome that skepticism. That means appearing credible is paramount to getting that open-mindedness.
If you’re a defense attorney defending a client charged with a low-level violent crime, the knee-jerk reaction is to kick off the juror who’s a banker but keep the social worker or nurse, kick off anyone who watches FOX, but keep the people who loved “Serial,” and always reject anyone affiliated with law enforcement.
Scientific jury selection, often abbreviated SJS, is the use of social science techniques and expertise to choose favorable juries during a criminal or civil trial.
The five-part series follows a fictional court case in which university lecturer Simon Davis (Michael Gould) is tried for the murder of his wife Carla, in an attempt to recreate an accurate portrayal of an English legal trial.
Currently you are able to watch "The Jury - Season 1" streaming on BritBox, BritBox Amazon Channel or buy it as download on Amazon Video, Apple iTunes.
Trial Analysis CorporationJason Bull, a psychologist and jury consultant loosely based on TV's Dr. Phil (McGraw), who was a trial consultant early in his career and is a co-creator of the series. The fictional Bull runs Trial Analysis Corporation (TAC) and eschews the term jury consultant, instead preferring trial science.
2Episodes (2) At Glasgow High Court, two people stand accused of murdering Margaret Fleming, disposing of her body and claiming benefits in her name for 16 years.
BBC OneShowtrial / NetworkBBC One is a British free-to-air television network owned and operated by the BBC. It is the corporation's flagship network and is known for broadcasting mainstream programming. They include the BBC News television bulletins, primetime drama and entertainment, and live sports events. Wikipedia
New OrleansPlot. In New Orleans, a disgruntled employee perpetrates a mass shooting with a machine pistol at a stock brokerage firm.
The jurors are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether, on the facts of the case, a person is guilty or not guilty of the offence for which he or she has been charged. The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge.
Courts and Legal Procedure A jury is a group of people summoned and sworn to decide on the facts in issue at a trial. The jury is composed of people who represent a cross-section of the community.
It's official: The sixth season of the CBS legal drama "Bull" will be its last. Series star Michael Weatherly made the announcement on Twitter, and the finale is expected to air in May 2022.
The series is, in fact, inspired by the early career of Dr. Phil, who founded a trial-consulting firm aimed at helping clients select the right jurors for their cases. His team also advised lawyers on which types of arguments are more likely to sway those handpicked jurors.
Partly Accurate, Mostly Bull. While consultants use information collected through internet research, juror questionnaires, and voir dire to try to predict how each juror is likely to lean in the case, no consultant claims to be able to predict with 100% accuracy how each juror will vote in deliberations.
Robinson, who spearheaded the project, said that alerting jurors to their underlying prejudices was a “no-brainer,” citing decades of research on the role of unconscious racial biases in “every aspect of American society,” from hiring practices to policing. “You have two choices: either talk about it or don’t talk about it, and haven’t we seen what happens when we don’t talk about it?” said Robinson. “If it goes unchecked, implicit bias will run rampant.”
The judge, Barbara Rothstein, ruled on Tuesday that the video would be “simply too prejudicial,” especially because the plaintiffs intended to argue that the officers were affected by racial bias when they shot Thomas. Objections to the video had been raised by the officers’ legal team in the wrongful death civil lawsuit.
The Washington federal court’s project is part of a broader effort to minimize the expression of unconscious bias in the courtroom. The American Bar Association, for example, posted guidelines for creating an impartial jury on its website, complete with recommended orientation materials and examples of jury instructions that directly address the issue of implicit bias.
In the UCLA Law Review, Jerry Kang, a law professor who is the school’s vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion, and some of his colleagues wrote that implicit bias education was likely to do more good than harm, and that such strategies are worth a try, even if there is little scholarship on their effectiveness in practice.
Though no particular case in his decades-long career incited his passion for the issue, Robinson said he has seen many jurors who “trust police officers implicitly” and hopes that those who do may reconsider their assumptions.
Sound new agey? It’s not. Whenever anyone responds to you directly, you get the opportunity to hear his voice and watch his body language. Is he looking directly at you or down? Are his arms folded across his chest? Does he seem annoyed or interested? No matter what the person’s job or neighborhood — if the prospective juror is pleasantly responsive, interested, and seems just plain “nice,” you might want to think of keeping that person. “Nice” goes a long way for the defendant. It’s not to say that “nice” jurors won’t convict, but at least they’ll give your client a fair shot.
When the judge asks them close-ended questions like, “You all promise you can be fair and impartial?”, they sit there dumbly, eyes glazed, nodding their heads. Close-ended questions by lawyers during voir dire have the same effect. They often provoke perplexed looks, annoyance, and boredom. You’ll have plenty of time to argue your legal theories in summation.
If you think of voir dire more like a talk show where the jurors are your “special guests” who you’re trying to get to know as opposed to students at a lecture hall, you’ll learn more about whether you want to seat them.
From Above the Law. 1) Stereotypes don’t always work. If you’re a defense attorney defending a client charged with a low-level violent crime, the knee-jerk reaction is to kick off the juror who’s a banker but keep the social worker or nurse, kick off anyone who watches FOX, but keep the people who loved “Serial,” and always reject anyone affiliated ...
Even if the evidence against your client is overwhelming, you can still win if you pick the right jury. The reverse is also true. Pick a majority of people looking to convict and no matter what the facts, they will. That’s how important selecting a jury is.
Some states don’t let attorneys do much of anything when picking a jury. Other states, though, open the floor to them, and there’s no better way to figure out who’ll vote for an acquittal than by doing a solid voir dire. Even if the evidence against your client is overwhelming, you can still win if you pick the right jury.
If you happen to be trying a case with a judge who does not preadmit exhibits, avoid “winging it” with your exhibits when questioning a witness. Nothing irritates a juror more than having to wait for counsel to dig through a box looking for the proper exhibit, or to wait while counsel asks an assistant to retrieve and deliver a document. (And if the attorney is male and relies on a female to hand over the documents, that’s a whole different perception problem.)
What this study brings home for lawyers is that, although it’s crucial to have the facts and the law on your side, jurors notice a world of issues that have little to do with the facts or the law.
While some lawyers may assume things like stipulations have zero relevance to jurors, think again. Multiple jurors wished counsel for all parties would stipulate to a greater number of facts. Obviously, this isn’t feasible in every type of case, but in the event there are facts that both sides can agree upon, there’s really no need to belabor the points any more than necessary for the appellate record. Agree to agree, address the issues as succinctly as possible, and move on to the facts actually in dispute.
1) Eye contact and body language. Yes, the first technique is arguably the simplest. Make eye contact with the jury when you’re talking to them. You don’t actually get to talk directly to the jury that often in a trial, so it’s vitally important when you do that you make it count.
Ultimately, connecting with a jury will help an attorney seem both likeable and credible. You’re not trying to hypnotize anyone, you’re just trying to seem like a regular person advocating for a cause you, and they, should believe in. An attorney that connects with a jury still needs to have the law and facts on their side. An attorney that alienates a jury needs overwhelming facts and law to get out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves. Connecting with the jury makes success that much more likely.
A client speaks maybe 1% of what the attorney speaks in a trial, if that. Because the attorney is the advocate and is the one representing the client, the client and attorney are intertwined. If the jury really hates one or the other, the whole case is in peril. Besides likeability, a jury needs to know it can trust the attorney.
Jury duty, as much as some people dislike, is still an incredibly important, incredibly fundamental part of our justice system. Jury duty empowers ordinary citizens to decide another citizen’s fate, and that’ s a powerful ability indeed.
The jury is far and away the most important part of a trial. As I wrote in my last post on the judiciary, the judge decides what evidence goes to the jury and how that evidence is framed, among other things. Regardless, it’s still the jury who decides the final outcome. In that sense each attorney is a supplicant, ...
An attorney that connects with a jury still needs to have the law and facts on their side. An attorney that alienates a jury needs overwhelming facts and law to get out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves. Connecting with the jury makes success that much more likely. 5 Techniques.
Representing the side that is the “just” side makes it more likely for a jury to find in your client’s favor. Even if a defendant is actually guilty, a jury could still determine justice is best served by not relying on a prosecution’s potentially flimsy rationale.