By Melissa M. Gomez
Special to the Legal
A few things about the manner in which jury trials are held are simply inconsistent with the way that people make decisions. One is the court's request that jurors only use the information/evidence provided in the context of the courtroom as the basis of their decisions. Even assuming that everyone follows the instruction not to perform their own Google searches, sitting back and passively receiving information is simply not the way that people work.
People are information seekers and active learners. How often are we told not to blindly accept what you are told or what you read? Consequently, jurors like to become their own sleuths. They know both sides have an agenda in the case and the truth likely lies somewhere in between. In a mock trial when I said, "There are two sides to every story," one of the panel members retorted, "There are actually three: What this side says, what that side says and what actually happened."
It is this perspective of a truth that exists outside of what they are being told that leads jurors to look beyond the testimony and presentations to try and find information that will lead to that third side of the story. Sometimes that information isn't even found inside the courtroom.
Take a medical malpractice case in which a plaintiff is seeking millions of dollars, claiming that a doctor's negligence has rendered him incapable of working in his technology consulting profession. Every day of the trial, this plaintiff went to an eatery during the lunch break and clicked away at his computer. Jurors saw this. It certainly looked like he was working to them. Verdict for the defense.
During trial, you and your client are being scrutinized, and not just in the courtroom. Do you wait for the light before you cross the street? Who are you talking to in the hall? Did you hold the elevator for someone or let it close in his or her face?
These are just some of the key peripheral cues jurors-turned-sleuths attend to in order to find that third side of the story -- the story that includes who you really are and who your client really is; that is the side they will call "the truth."
Melissa M. Gomez is a jury consultant and owner of MMG Jury Consulting. She holds a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. Her experience includes work on hundreds of jury trials in Philadelphia and across the country, with a focus on the psychology of juror learning, behavior and decision-making. If you have questions regarding jury psychology that you would like to see addressed in this blog, contact Gomez at melissa@mmgjury.com or call 215-292-7956.
An excellent piece and series! Once, as a paralegal to high-profile lawyers, I worked with a jury consultant on a murder case we'd taken pro bono. Whatever my prejudices toward consultant initially, I wound up admiring our consultants and was intrigued by their work. Which contributed, I strongly believe, to a lesser verdict than second degree murder, which is what the prosecutor was demanding.
Posted by: Naomi Fein | Monday, June 13, 2011 at 09:38 AM