Jury Duty

[Lily Valley]

 

A lawyer did write about the experience of being on a jury, though, saying it was like being in kindergarten, with very basic instructions being given and nothing explained in depth.  It was like having surgery explained as "This man will come in with a knife and cut that man open and do things and then he'll sew him up."

 

Very much this.   There's not much the attorneys can say during questioning, but they wind up revealing a lot about the case.  If a juror asks questions, the juror gets struck.  The more the attorneys patronize the jurors in this fashion, the more the jury hates the attorneys.  

Somebody told me (you know who you are) that not all attorneys are good at jury selection.  My question for the board lawyers is, if an attorney sucks at jury selection, why are they in trial law?  If I completely alienated my target audience in the classroom, I should not teach, right?  I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the analogy here, but would love to hear your responses.

[sologdin]

one might hire jury consultants to manage voir dire.

[Ravenhair]

Lily, I told you that not all attorneys are good at jury selection.  Lawyers who never see the inside of a courtroom don't need to be good at it, but yes, the ability to conduct voir dire should be within a litigator's skillset.  This isn't something  taught in law school generally, unless you have participated in a clinic, taken Trial Advocacy, or worked with a judge.  Jury selection is learned by watching good attorneys pick juries and, as Sologdin mentioned, working with jury consultants can help.  There are books on the subject; CLEs devoted to the topic; and articles written about it. Most of all, though, attorneys learn to select juries by simply doing it again and again. Some basic attorney tips: 

1.  An attorney starts trying a case during jury selection.  This is the time to build rapport, to educate jurors about your case by formulating your questions properly, and to find and eliminate unfavorable jurors. 
2.  Attorneys learn by doing, and jury selection is no exception. 
3. Lecturing prospective jurors is a turn-off.  Asking questions and then listening to the answers is key.  Here is where establishing a rapport begins. 
4. Attorneys must realize a jury pool knows each other a bit by the time they get to the jury box.  If an attorney acts disrespectfully to any potential juror, he or she risks them all getting pissed off. 
5. If a potential juror expresses an off-the-wall view, for example, the police are always right, the attorney should not shut the person down.  Rather, the attorney should ask questions of the juror to get the person to expand on his or her views, listen attentively, and then thank the person.  The attorney should then ask how many people agree with that view.  You find out far more information that way. 
6. The prospective jurors should be doing most of the talking, not the attorneys.  A bad voir dire is one in which an attorney is talking a lot. 
7. A catch-all that MacCarthy's Bar Rule summarizes as "talk in jury selection as you would talk in a barroom." This means use plain words; do not condescend; and do not act superior.

There are many more tips to note, such as getting rid of the script, but this should give you a (very brief and incomplete) idea of what the attorneys should be doing.  If they are not, is it possible they are new? Could they have very little trial experience?  It is also possible they could just be bad. 

[Tears of Lys]

attorneys can be jurors in louisiana, too.  woe to any employer or carrier whose attorneys let me slip onto the jury.

You never know.  Sometimes when you're put in that position, your reaction can be surprising. 

Although, in the case of an insurance company, I too am irredeemably prejudiced against them. 

 

ETA: Attorneys aren't automatically exempted from jury service either.  Of course, law enforcement officers are. (/no brainer)  I can see them serving on a civil case, though.  We wonders....

[Lily Valley]

Lily, I told you that not all attorneys are good at jury selection.

<snip>

There are many more tips to note, such as getting rid of the script, but this should give you a (very brief and incomplete) idea of what the attorneys should be doing.  If they are not, is it possible they are new? Could they have very little trial experience?  It is also possible they could just be bad. 

All of those things seem like common sense.  It also makes sense to me that a PD or an ADA who are fresh out of school would still be in love with the sound of their own voice.   It DOESN'T make sense that paid Criminal Defense Attorneys should suck at voir dire to the point of completely pissing off the jury.   That seems like career suicide and yet I saw it.

I'd add one more thing to that list.

An attorney CANNOT afford to lose their temper or appear exasperated.  The SLIGHTEST hint that an attorney thinks a question is stupid or is impatient to get the statement they're looking for is going to piss us off.  We're taking off work to be there and we're expected to take it seriously.  It's frustrating for the jury not to be able to know much about the case and we're really not encouraged to ask our own questions.  Seeing an attorney get exasperated by an answer we give or a question we ask after they've been talking at us for 4 hours elicits a rage response from the whole pool.  This happened three times over the two days and the whole pool's reaction was something along the lines of, "Oh.  I'm SORRY.  Am I wasting YOUR time here by answering you?"

Solo:

Didn't see this earlier.  WHOOPS!  Also, it made no difference at all.  Shows what you know.

 

LV, don't go hungover either, dammit.

 

[AverageGuy]

Several admitted that they wouldn't be able to convict because they felt the law was unjust, these were also excused.  

So slightly off Lily's main topic, however I've been thinking about this, and what's really the point of juries? I would've thought a juror voting based on their opinion of the law would be a feature of the jury system. But they ask you to judge based on the facts as defined by the law, right? So it would seem like lawyers and judges would be better qualified than any juror and should really just hash out innocence and sentencing between them, no jury needed.

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^ Well that may be more efficient but doesnt our (U.S.) system place the emphasis on due process and the right to a jury of our peers? We don't cede the process to experts so we can  keep the standard at judgement by the community or peers. The U.S. jury system seems pretty good for what it's tasked to do.

[sologdin]

So slightly off Lily's main topic, however I've been thinking about this, and what's really the point of juries? I would've thought a juror voting based on their opinion of the law would be a feature of the jury system. But they ask you to judge based on the facts as defined by the law, right? So it would seem like lawyers and judges would be better qualified than any juror and should really just hash out innocence and sentencing between them, no jury needed.

jury is the 'trier of fact.' one of the tasks of court & counsel is to draft jury instructions (or 'jury charges,' as the court will 'charge' the jury prior to deliberation) on how to consider the case.  one of the most hectic moments of a trial is the charge conference wherein attorneys must argue to the judge in chambers toward the end which law applies to the evidence as developed in the case.  in a long trial, everyone's usually exhausted, so there's a possibility for lotsa shooting from the hip, and judge may defer to attorneys better known or politically connected, unless the law is something judge knows well. 

the jury, once charged, will also be given written 'jury interrogatories,' which are also put together by the attorneys and argued to the judge in chambers.  the jury interrogatories will have basic questions such as "do you find that A and B had a contract to deliver x?" "if yes, did A fail to deliver x?" "if yes, how much, if anything, does A owe to B?" and so on for any issue preserved up to that time.  if done correctly, then the jury's tasks are set down in order and shouldn't leave much room (in theory) for any fuckups.  the completed jury interrogatories will form the basis of the verdict.

the applicable law and issues to be presented are decided by the court, as argued by the attorneys.  the jury's sole task is to decide between disputed issues of material fact.  if there are no disputed issues of material fact (in our contract case, the amount of x to be delivered is very probably material, but the haircut that the delivery guy had is highly likely to be immaterial, say), then the case can be decided by the judge on motion (basically what law applies to the undisputed material facts and what result).

[ThinkerX]

One of these days, some legal beagle is going to screw up big time an allow sologdin to be impaneled on a jury.  The resulting judicial disaster should make the national news.  

[A True Kaniggit]

So I have to report in in the morning. It seems the prevailing opinion is that I'm about to have a boring day ahead of me. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ATK,

Always bring a book.  An actual book many courts will not allow an eReader.

[Cubarey]

" One of these days, some legal beagle is going to screw up big time an allow sologdin to be impaneled on a jury.  The resulting judicial disaster should make the national news.   "

 

While attorneys are allowed to seve on a jury I have seen very few choose, in my 30 years (I am a corporate attroney but work for an insurance defense firm). Basicly the attitude that most trail lawyers I trust have towerds attorneys on a jury is that its almost never a good idea. Either they will dominate the other members of the jury or the other members will dislike his attempt to control them and be totally against his views. Does not matter if the trial attorney thinks the lawyer is going to side with him or not, the view is that the lawyer is just going to screw up the jury as a whole.

 

"Many Jury pools are dismissed by 10 0r 11 am as it becomes clear they will not be needed. Just do not be so unlucky as being shoosen for a grand jury. A grand jury can seat from 6 months to 18 months and have an erratic schedule. And if you think that listening to a trial can be boring or problematic just wait until you realize that a grand jury will only be exposed to the prosecutors side of the case.

 

 

[A True Kaniggit]

See Scot

Yep. Brought Red Badge of Courage. Main reason being it fits in my pocket, the other contender being Shane. 

Edit: 4 hours in, no end in sight. 

Edit 2: There goes my next 2-3 weeks. 

[Lily Valley]

9 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

See Scot

Yep. Brought Red Badge of Courage. Main reason being it fits in my pocket, the other contender being Shane. 

Edit: 4 hours in, no end in sight. 

Edit 2: There goes my next 2-3 weeks. 

Aw Crap.  Did you get picked?  Bring LOTS of books.

[Astromech]

Hopefully you aren't sequestered

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, Lily Valley said:

Aw Crap.  Did you get picked?  Bring LOTS of books.

Correct. Many books shall be reread in the coming weeks  

1 hour ago, Astromech said:

Hopefully you aren't sequestered

Thanks, but that seems highly unlikely. It's not a criminal case. 

[OberynMormont]

Sorry to hear this Lily!

I got selected for potential jury duty a few months ago.  This was for what's known as "Court of Queen's Bench" here in Canada, which is where the serious stuff gets tried--assault, drugs, robberies, murder, rape, etc.  You know, the "fun stuff".  We all got letters telling us we'd been summoned, plus a page of instructions and a 1 page questionnaire that helped to select out the people who weren't eligible--cops, correctional officers, lawyers, etc.  Morning of, all of us who weren't exempted showed up, got our names and juror numbers checked off and went into the courtroom and waited for about an hour.  Once they got started, the judge told us what would happen.  Then the accused was brought in and we found out what he was on trial for.  They then picked 18 or so  numbers and they were called up.  One by one they looked at the accused, the lawyers challenged or not, and if necessary they made their excuses.  This went on for about 45 minutes until they found 12 jurors and 2 alternates.  Then, the rest of us got to go home--the chosen stayed for further instruction.  Thankfully, my number wasn't even called.   They chose the people to report based on our provincial health cards--everyone has one, so they just pick the number they need to show up that are over 18 and send out the letter.

Turns out the guy was charged with 1 count of 2nd degree murder and 2 counts of aggravated assault and was convicted on the assault and manslaughter.  Glad I wasn't chosen.

Good luck!

[The Brandon Stark]

delete

[Baitac]

Soooo, I'm to report tomorrow at 8:00a.m. Thankfully we can bring phones and iPads and they provide Wifi. I think this is very smart as it subdues the restless masses. It definitely settle me down. No drinks allowed, so I'll gulp my Starbucks mocha on the way. Hopefully my number won't be called. 

[OberynMormont]

You're lucky, Baitac!  The courthouse I was at didn't have WiFi and even if it did they didn't let iPads, etc. in.   Didn't want us to cause a mistrial or something.