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.
Continue reading "Just the Instructions, and Nothing But the Instructions: Increase the Salience of Jury Instructions" »
by: Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm
From exploding automobile gas tanks to faulty cribs, the history of jury verdicts is littered with cautionary tales of what can happen when a company fails the perceptual test of protecting its customers and standing behind its product. While these lessons apply most obviously to products liability, a parallel concept applies to any company that sells a product or delivers a service: The company is either a good steward or a poor steward of the goods it brings to market, and jurors’ assessment of that will determine the company’s credibility and fault. Comments from recent interviews of jurors who had recently completed their trial service has reminded me of five rules or themes that companies should use in order to, ideally, avoid litigation, but also to defend themselves should they find themselves the target of a lawsuit. The rules may boil down to common sense, but after all, the advantage of common sense is that it is so…well, common. These are the five that stood out in recent interviews:
Continue reading "Steward Your Product" »
