Verdict Rendered - My Jury Service Is Over Part 2 - Suggestions For Jurors and Final Observation
In the last jury service post I explained the background of the case I sat as a juror on, the verdict my fellow 11 jurors and I reached, and I offered some suggestions from the jury box for lawyers who try cases.
This post is about suggestions for jurors, and prospective jurors, that might make your jury experience a little better. So when you open your mailbox to find a jury summons someday, come back here to prepare yourself the day before you must appear at the courthouse. It's also about final thoughts about jury service.
Suggestions for Jurors:
- Bring a bottle of water. You will get thirsty. Drinking fountains may be few and inundated by long queues
- Bring snacks. You'll get hungry and there may be little or no food available
- Bring a book. You'll endure long periods waiting for something to happen and yearn for entertainment. Officials may prohibit use of PDAs, smart phones, iPods and other electronic devices at some point. So bring an old fashioned book. You can bring a newspaper too. But they're cumbersome and you may be in close quarters where it's impractical to open-up and turn the pages of a newspaper
- Sit where you have a good view of the witnesses. Watch them closely. It's the best way you can decide whether you think they're telling the truth
- The in-court Sheriff's deputy is your friend. Be good to them and they'll be good to you
If
the judge lets you, take notes, but only for things that seem really
important. If you're a juror in a civil case, take notes during
closing arguments on how much damages each side is asking for. Those
notes will be important when you deliberate- Be patient. Jury duty means a lot of hurry up and wait. Just
remember, you get to go home at the end of the day. The lawyers go
back to their offices and work until 3AM preparing for the next day of
trial. They're working really hard and are under intense pressure.
Give them a break. And give them your attention while questioning
witnesses and arguing their conclusions to you. They've worked really
hard and earned it
- Try the "jury of one" technique. Here's how you do it:
- First, each juror identifies how they would decide each issue that
is on the verdict forms in the case if they were the only person on the
jury.
- Then they explain why they would decide each issue that way.
This really focuses the discussion. It shows many places where jurors already agree. And it reveals new facets of an issue that other juror may not have seen and want to consider. This technique was decisive in building consensus among factions on our jury and if you're a juror I urge you to consider using it
- Listen closely to your fellow jurors. You'll be amazed at how much
wisdom you'll find in complete strangers. And you'll also be amazed at
what they heard or observed that you missed. It could be critical. Or
it could just be comical. I was so busy watching the witnesses that I
totally missed one of the lawyers picking their nose at the counsel
table while his opponent questioned a witness. But several other
jurors noticed and brought it up during deliberations
- In deliberations, allow each juror to speak uninterrupted. If someone says something that prompts a response you'd like to give, write it down and bring it up when it's your turn to talk
- Pace your deliberations. Deliberate for a maximum of 50 minutes at a time. After each 50 minute period end, take a 10 minute break to recharge, reflect, and go to the restroom. Of course if the whole jury is really focused or close to a verdict, go past 50 minutes. But odds are keeping to this kind of schedule will reduce fatigue and irritability.
Serving as a juror in this case affirmed for me a maxim I often suspected about business disputes: a bad settlement is better than a good trial. It may not apply to criminal and personal injury cases where the stakes are different and the proof often less abstract. There are probably exceptions too, but I doubt I've seen one yet.
If you get selected to serve on a jury, enjoy it and be proud of participating in the work of the judicial branch of our government. It won't work the way it's supposed to without you. Hopefully what you just read makes your jury experience at least a little better
Construction Law Today is a legal blog about construction contracts, disputes, finance, and the people whose job it is to deal with them.
I have really enjoyed reading of your experience in the jury room. As a Georgia lawyer, I was surprised to have been picked for jurty duty. It was a great experience, however, and I learned a gread deal about the art of advocacy. Our jury consisted of ten hard-working, blue-collar members, a CPA and myself. During the initial deliberations, a poll indicated that the CPA and I thought the defendant was not guilty, and the others thought he was guilty. Throughout the deliberations, those of us in the the "not guilty" camp were able to persuade the others to agree to a not guilty verdict. Upon later reflection, I understood that the prosecution targeted the ordinary citizen, but the defense attorney targeted his case toward me and hope that I would do his job with the other members of the jury.
^
Mark:
Thanks for your comment and reading this blog.
You'd be surprised how many lawyers and judges get chosen to serve on juries these days. Two associates in my office had a trial this year before a state court judge who was selected as a juror in his own state court. He was a juror on a trial that one of his brothers or sisters presided over. The presumption that lawyers will be dismissed sua sponte or for cause has really gone the way of leaded gasoline.
I bet the defendant was happy you stayed on the jury. There's a lot of conventional wisdom on whether trial counsel should keep a lawyer on the panel. To me it's all bunk. They're making assumptions based on their own biases and prejudices. They rarely have an idea of which way a lawyer will go and most don't have enough voire dire data to make a really educated guess.
For a criminal defendant, the lawyer on the jury could be very helpful because they're more likely to understand and apply the high standard of proof the government must satisfy to convict. But a an experienced lawyer may also be more jaded and skeptical too. And that may make them more skilled in identifying deception and suspect testimony that the defense offers as exculpatory evidence. Just that scenario right there shows how it's really impossible to classify a lawyer in the verire as likely to favor one side or the other just becuase they took an oath of admission to the bar.
If you don't mind my asking:
* Has your jury service affected how you approach construction disputes in your practice?
* How has it affected your inclination to put mandatory arbitration clauses or jury trial waivers in contract you write in your transactional practice?
Hi Joshua,
And, thank you for your comment. Sorry it's been a fews days in responding, but it's been one of those busy weeks. Quail is the big draw to Thomasville, Georgia and the season is about to open. That means the town comes back to life with non-stop activities. It's great fun but very time consuming.
Like so many of our collegues, I write creatively on the side--perhaps I'll create a story about a judge who gets picked for a jury. That must take the cake! Anyhow, I greatly appreciate your comments, and it has cause me to think about my experience and my practice.
We primarily represent large suppliers and sub-contractors on commercial or public construction projects. Accordingly, both sides tend to prefer bench trials so my jury service has not really affected the way we practice. Conventional wisdom taught me to never pick a lawyer for a jury; were I to face a jury now, however, I would gladly chose a lawyer for the jury--I think it would make my job much easier (I can't imagine what having a judge on the jury would mean!). Of course, I don't think that the lawyers are any smarter or have any greater gifts than the other members of the jury, but we do like to persuade those near us. Therefore, if a trial lawyer can influence the juror-lawyer, then there's a great chance the juror-lawyer will try to convince the rest of the jury. That having been said, I maintain a great faith in our jury system and the people who serve on them.
Any fear I may have towards the jury system stems from the costs and time associated with jury trials. We do use mandatory arbitration clauses in many of our contracts as, in this jurisdiction, it can lead to quicker resolution and reduced attorney fees. Needless to say, clients appreciate both points.
Do you find yourself or fellow construction practioners before a jury very often?
Mark,
Deer season will begin here soon so I know what you mean quail season. I'd like to join you quail hunting sometime.
I eagerly await your book about a judge serving on a jury. I try to remember that judges are lawyers who've entered another kind of practice. And may that would affect how they see a jury trial. I'd really like to read the fictional account of a distinguished jurist serving on jury - Holmes, Cardozo, one of the Hand brothers, Robert H. Jackson, or John Minor Wisdom. Perhaps a 12 person jury composed of our current 9 US Supreme Court Justices and plus Marshall, Holmes, and Jackson. We know how they decide legal issues. I wonder how they’d decide the facts?
I'd say beware of the conventional wisdom. Gen. George S. Patton put this sentiment best: "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
Based in my experience in the jury room, a lawyer on a jury is no more or less likely to favor you or your opponent. But whichever way the proof takes them, they're likely to go more intensely in that direction. Like trying to handicap other venirepersons, I suspect most often you won't be able to collect and analyze a juror during voire dire to reliably predict which side the proof will compel the lawyer to favor any more than you can with anyone else on the venire. It's like trying to predict when the next big drought is going to hit Georgia.
Jury trials are expensive and from what I've observed in business cases, they don't often yield results that are worth the time, expense, or intrusion. Mediation can help settle a lot of cases. And mandatory arbitration can delivery results with less cost and less time if properly planned for in the contract before the parties are hostile and polarized that they're trying to jockey and gerrymander the arbitration process for an advantage. The really tough thing I've also observed is how difficult it becomes to avoid arbitration becoming a private trial involving a similar spending of time and money.
Construction disputes for me and my colleagues does not often take us in front of jurors. The cases usually settle and those that don’t are often subject to mandatory arbitration.
As I'm sure you're well aware, most construction disputes are hyper-technical lack dramatic narrative. I think I’d pity most jurors chosen to endure trial of one.
-- Josh