I am a lawyer. Never thought I’d be selected for jury. Selected twice. First time civil (most boring trial ever) and I was foreperson. I actually knew not much more than anyone else since that was not my area. But I was young and my ego was in full swing. Second time (criminal) I refused the position. But they still looked to me for answers. I learned so much from my fellow jurors.
Every lawyer should be a juror. I learned the need for a representing attorney (defense, plaintiff, prosecutor) to anticipate and answer all questions. Why no DNA/fingerprints etc (not always like tv and maybe not possible). How am I supposed to not think about that answer like the judge said? Well pretend you never heard the answer- does it have an impact on decision. If answer would color or change opinion there is something that you don’t know about the value or weight of the answer and you should not use it. Or make yourself believe that that answer was just not true or tainted. It helps. Why? Because sometimes information carries more weight or less truth than it is worth and this is about a person’s life.
Why are all the lawyers and judge whispering and sending us away? Because people on trial deserve the very best we can give them and sometimes knowing irrelevant/iffy stuff makes us think differently about the case we are suppose to decide. Sometimes we don’t even know how that information works on our decisions. We all want the defendant to get the benefit we would want and we all have”stuff” we are not proud of doing that would not relate to potential charges but might make us look bad. No one should be convicted of a crime just because he was not always a “good” person or made mistakes.
Juries are comprised, generally, of a group of people who want to do the right thing. They feel disrespected when they think the judge and lawyers know a secret they won’t tell. In my opinion, it is the rare juror who doesn’t talk about the case with a significant other. If case is newsworthy- everyone badgers them. Who doesn’t want to be the “one in the know.” So much “advice” is given. It’s the hardest job, to remember what you’ve heard outside the court and what is actual evidence presented can be confusing.
The most important thing that a lawyer can do in opening and closing is explain reasons behind all of these very understandable questions. If you know in advance that there will be an issue, explain it early. Always know that jurors ALL want to hear from defendant. You must explain clearly why that may not or did not happen.
Watch tv. Look for the stuff that makes you choke. Explain why that did not happen in your case. Generally, jurors learn law from tv and their neighbor. Absolve them discretely from hearing information but impress upon them that only information obtained in the courtroom is evidence. Acknowledge their dilemmas and confusion. Do not ignore elephants in the room. Do not accuse or cast doubt on their integrity, honesty, efforts or sacrifice. Just ask that they give the defendant the same consideration that they would want for themselves. Simply acknowledge the difficulties and express gratitude for their honest efforts.
Prosecutors in OJ should have asked the jury (among other things) “Given evidence that there were at least x number of 911 calls to Nicole’s house and horrific abuse pictures and no arrests or trials, why would anyone believe that a random 911 call would cause police to arrive prepared to plant evidence of blood (from where?), a glove, etc. why would the LA police kill the golden calf of parties, tickets, and gifts when they had always protected him? They should have poisoned the Rodney King well. They should have acknowledged the terrible outcome. Emphasized King’s mercy and gone after the hearts and souls of the jurors by asking if they truly believed that Simpson was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should be exonerated so that he could raise the children of the mother killed. These are jury issues.
The trial is not everything. Lawyers need to know what pieces are missing. When given the chance to tell the story acknowledge the questions that the jurors understandably have about procedures. The most famous line in a modern US criminal case closing should never have been “if it doesn’t fit you must acquit.” There (I believe) was evidence as to why the glove did not fit. (Lack of anti inflammatories and effort) Plus I think anyone can make a leather glove look too small. Dang things are tight.
Bottom line. So much legal inside baseball happens in courtrooms. Jurors are people. They want to know. They don’t like being outsiders wondering. Address this. Help them. Include them as the most important part of the team.
I had one chance to serve on a jury, but it came at a time that I was teaching a course for the employer at the time and the day I was being requested there was no one who could take over.
I always thought it would have been cool, but no one else knew that day's subject matter as well.
I found this very interesting. I have only been a part of jury selection once and my profession was the reason I personally could not serve. It was a medical case of which I could not be impartial. I and the two lawyers had a whispered discussion with the judge and all came to this conclusion. I walked away very impressed with the judge.
Great article. I went to law school at the age of 47 after serving on a jury and seeing what happens. And I don’t like to hear anyone doing everything possible to avoid jury duty. It’s an incredible experience. And such an important one.
I was only interviewed as a prospective juror once, and was rejected. Recently, a well-know NY attorney mentioned that there were certain professions she would not want on a jury - the first she mentioned was Social Worker. Her explanation was fascinating, and true. Mental Health professionals listen to evidence but tend to interpret it based on other factors than what was presented. I always thought I'd be a very fair juror but, hearing that, I realized she was correct. And, I wonder if that's the case across the board.
Thank you for your input on this important case. I have never served on a jury but would like to be called. There are 3 lawyers in our family and I have not asked them their take on this case.
I am a lawyer. Never thought I’d be selected for jury. Selected twice. First time civil (most boring trial ever) and I was foreperson. I actually knew not much more than anyone else since that was not my area. But I was young and my ego was in full swing. Second time (criminal) I refused the position. But they still looked to me for answers. I learned so much from my fellow jurors.
Every lawyer should be a juror. I learned the need for a representing attorney (defense, plaintiff, prosecutor) to anticipate and answer all questions. Why no DNA/fingerprints etc (not always like tv and maybe not possible). How am I supposed to not think about that answer like the judge said? Well pretend you never heard the answer- does it have an impact on decision. If answer would color or change opinion there is something that you don’t know about the value or weight of the answer and you should not use it. Or make yourself believe that that answer was just not true or tainted. It helps. Why? Because sometimes information carries more weight or less truth than it is worth and this is about a person’s life.
Why are all the lawyers and judge whispering and sending us away? Because people on trial deserve the very best we can give them and sometimes knowing irrelevant/iffy stuff makes us think differently about the case we are suppose to decide. Sometimes we don’t even know how that information works on our decisions. We all want the defendant to get the benefit we would want and we all have”stuff” we are not proud of doing that would not relate to potential charges but might make us look bad. No one should be convicted of a crime just because he was not always a “good” person or made mistakes.
Juries are comprised, generally, of a group of people who want to do the right thing. They feel disrespected when they think the judge and lawyers know a secret they won’t tell. In my opinion, it is the rare juror who doesn’t talk about the case with a significant other. If case is newsworthy- everyone badgers them. Who doesn’t want to be the “one in the know.” So much “advice” is given. It’s the hardest job, to remember what you’ve heard outside the court and what is actual evidence presented can be confusing.
The most important thing that a lawyer can do in opening and closing is explain reasons behind all of these very understandable questions. If you know in advance that there will be an issue, explain it early. Always know that jurors ALL want to hear from defendant. You must explain clearly why that may not or did not happen.
Watch tv. Look for the stuff that makes you choke. Explain why that did not happen in your case. Generally, jurors learn law from tv and their neighbor. Absolve them discretely from hearing information but impress upon them that only information obtained in the courtroom is evidence. Acknowledge their dilemmas and confusion. Do not ignore elephants in the room. Do not accuse or cast doubt on their integrity, honesty, efforts or sacrifice. Just ask that they give the defendant the same consideration that they would want for themselves. Simply acknowledge the difficulties and express gratitude for their honest efforts.
Prosecutors in OJ should have asked the jury (among other things) “Given evidence that there were at least x number of 911 calls to Nicole’s house and horrific abuse pictures and no arrests or trials, why would anyone believe that a random 911 call would cause police to arrive prepared to plant evidence of blood (from where?), a glove, etc. why would the LA police kill the golden calf of parties, tickets, and gifts when they had always protected him? They should have poisoned the Rodney King well. They should have acknowledged the terrible outcome. Emphasized King’s mercy and gone after the hearts and souls of the jurors by asking if they truly believed that Simpson was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should be exonerated so that he could raise the children of the mother killed. These are jury issues.
The trial is not everything. Lawyers need to know what pieces are missing. When given the chance to tell the story acknowledge the questions that the jurors understandably have about procedures. The most famous line in a modern US criminal case closing should never have been “if it doesn’t fit you must acquit.” There (I believe) was evidence as to why the glove did not fit. (Lack of anti inflammatories and effort) Plus I think anyone can make a leather glove look too small. Dang things are tight.
Bottom line. So much legal inside baseball happens in courtrooms. Jurors are people. They want to know. They don’t like being outsiders wondering. Address this. Help them. Include them as the most important part of the team.
#SHERAH great piece.
I was tremendously excited to finally be called to jury duty when I turned 50.
Two days of trial as an alternate, and then I was dismissed at it went to deliberation...
Oh well.
I've never made it into a jury box, and as a civil litigator, I doubt very much that any attorney would want me on their jury panel!
Thanks for this take, counselor. 😊
I had one chance to serve on a jury, but it came at a time that I was teaching a course for the employer at the time and the day I was being requested there was no one who could take over.
I always thought it would have been cool, but no one else knew that day's subject matter as well.
Oh well.
I found this very interesting. I have only been a part of jury selection once and my profession was the reason I personally could not serve. It was a medical case of which I could not be impartial. I and the two lawyers had a whispered discussion with the judge and all came to this conclusion. I walked away very impressed with the judge.
Great article. I went to law school at the age of 47 after serving on a jury and seeing what happens. And I don’t like to hear anyone doing everything possible to avoid jury duty. It’s an incredible experience. And such an important one.
I was only interviewed as a prospective juror once, and was rejected. Recently, a well-know NY attorney mentioned that there were certain professions she would not want on a jury - the first she mentioned was Social Worker. Her explanation was fascinating, and true. Mental Health professionals listen to evidence but tend to interpret it based on other factors than what was presented. I always thought I'd be a very fair juror but, hearing that, I realized she was correct. And, I wonder if that's the case across the board.
Thank you for your input on this important case. I have never served on a jury but would like to be called. There are 3 lawyers in our family and I have not asked them their take on this case.