Persuasive Litigator

Make Sure Jurors Tell You How Bad Your Client Is

by: Dr. Kevin Boully

 

I think corporations have way too much power and they squash the little guy. 

 

Last week in a federal district courtroom in northwestern United States, Juror #4 shared some of the most transparent and scathing opinions of American corporations ever to bounce off a courtroom wall.  Just as his cutting remarks were starting to gain steam, the judge cut him off mid-sentence and promptly dismissed him from the courtroom for cause.  Jurors’ anti-corporate bias is nothing new.  And it is no real surprise to encounter a juror who believes in corporate deception and conspiracy – after all, “Corporations are what’s wrong with this county.”  The twist in this civil jury trial came from a slightly different place.  The court heard Juror #4’s comments no sooner than the Defendant’s brief oral voir dire, and if not for defense counsel’s targeted voir dire question, would never have heard it at all.

 

The lesson is clear.  Once you’ve identified the highest risk attitudes and opinions for your case, do not refuse to ask jurors bluntly and openly about them for fear an honest response will poison your panel.  Ask the question.  Make sure jurors tell you the answer.  You need to know how bad it is. 

Just the Instructions, and Nothing But the Instructions: Increase the Salience of Jury Instructions

by: Dr. Shelley Spiecker

Evidence shows that false documents were notarized by employees and submitted to a state regulatory agency.  Evidence also shows that record-keeping was inaccurate; nevertheless, these matters cannot be addressed due to the parameters in the jury instructions. (Female, 55 year-old)

 

This quote, spoken by a juror after serving in a two month oil and gas production trial, typifies feedback I am receiving from jurors in a wide array of different cases in venues across the country.  While jurors are troubled by evidence they see at trial, and possibly even want to find against a defendant, they are adhering to the confines of jury instructions like never before.

 

Take, for example, another completely different case – a high-profile child abuse and murder case.  A majority of jurors, having sat through this approximately two month trial, echoed the dominance of the jury instructions in their verdict.  In this case, the instructions benefitted both the prosecution and defense.  Specifically, due to the wording of the criminal negligence instruction, jurors were guaranteed to find the defendant guilty of some wrong doing.  Alternatively, the definition of child abuse was the key factor that unified a divided jury.  Initially, jurors relied heavily on their own definitions of what they perceived to be child abuse.  After several jurors focused the panel on the legal definition, jurors came to unanimous agreement – convicting on over 25 counts of child abuse and acquitting on the remaining – for failure of the evidence to meet the legal criteria.