It's been a good two weeks all over the Internet for those interested in juries. Samples:
1. Padilla jurors already doubting. Jose Padilla is on trial in Miami, and they've been picking the jury for weeks. One fascinating facet of the voir dire was the answer several jurors gave to a good voir dire question: who they thought was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (Since jurors usually won't and often can't confess to bias on voir dire, it's useful to ask them what their take is on a well-known event that's relevant to the case.) Many of the potential jurors, an AP story reported, gave the surprising answer that they didn't know:
"There are too many ifs, too many things going on," one male juror said. "I don't know the whole story."
The defense lawyers had to be encouraged; an American who thinks there's reasonable doubt about 9/11 is likely to think there is reasonable doubt about a lot of things.
Jury selection finally finished this week, and Howard Bashman (fresh from his trip to this blog's idyllic lakeside hometown) collects the news stories here. The lawyers are trading allegations, accusing each other of striking Muslims (the government) and Hispanics (the defense).
2. Trial through the defendant's eyes. A pediatrician who blogs anonymously as Flea has been sued for malpractice, and his blog has become a diary of the trial, which started this week. Flea's first trial post is bitter (the plaintiff's lawyer gets the name "Carissa Lunt" in this story), candid beyond any thought of work-product privilege, and observant:
The enduring memory of jury-selection day was the quiet. It was kinda like a monastery. For most of the day all, even when the room was full of hot, impatient, discomfited jurors, all that could be heard was the sound of conditioned air rumbling through the ducts in the ceiling.
Eric Turkewitz at New York Personal Injury Law Blog, who engages in occasional debate with Flea over the ethics and philosophy of malpractice litigation, collects Flea's pretrial posts here, including the one where he meets with his jury consultant, and the one where the consultant helps him practice his testimony on tape.
(Update: If you're reading this sentence, you're unfortunately too late for at least some of these posts. Eric reports that Flea's posts on his trial have, not surprisingly, been taken down -- but not yet, for some reason, the two links above.)
3. Thoughts on race, from baseball. Insights on unconscious bias keep coming from the world of sports. At Trial Ad Notes, Mary Whisner notes a survey of opinions on the baseball player Barry Bonds, and considers how the results illuminate jurors' attitudes:
- Who's rooting for Bonds to break Hank Aaron's home run record? Only 28% of whites, but 75% of blacks.
- Who thinks Bonds knowingly took steroids? About 75% of whites, just over a third of blacks.
4. A resource for beginning lawyers. In a separate post, Mary flags a terrific mini-book, available in full on line, called "Basic Trial Advocacy," by Indiana professor James Tanford. He covers the basics of everything from the moment the bailiff says "All rise" to closing argument. Experienced lawyers might disagree with a few things here ("your opening statement, if you are giving one"), and those who stress a particular technique will say Tanford should have emphasized it more. But it's a solid, approachable, one-stop place to look for direction, like the nine "Cardinal Rules of Successful Trials" with which the guide begins:
1. Act respectful toward the judge. Stand when he/she enters or leaves the room. Address him/her as "your honor."
2. Be brief.
3. Don't waffle or whine
4. Never underestimate your opponent
5. Wear comfortable clothes, especially shoes. No rule requires men to wear vests or women to wear pumps that make them limp.
6. Bring water and granola bars.
7. Arrive at every court appearance at least 15 minutes early.
8. Be formal and professional at all times.
9. Prepare.
Mary learned about Tanford's guide from a blog called Winning Trial Advocacy Techniques, by Elliott Wilcox. His tag line is "Revealing the secrets for persuading jurors and winning more jury trials," which is enough to get me to subscribe.
5. A new study on age and fear. Dave Munger at Cognitive Daily has a great post examining a new study where older and younger adults were asked to look at pictures of dangerous situations. "Older adults consistently rated the threat from the high danger pictures significantly lower than younger adults," he explains. His discussion is thorough, including not only a graph, but a very cute picture of his daughter.
When you need jurors to assess risk -- Did the plaintiff act rashly? Should the defendant have taken greater care? Was it self-defense? -- it's worth remembering that older jurors may make the assessment differently.
6. Good advice, folks. "Put a lawyer in front of a jury and it's only seconds before he'll start using the word 'folks,'" says Evan Schaeffer at Illinois Trial Practice Weblog. Some of us can get away with it and some can't, as he explains. I'm definitely a can't.
(Photo by Ho John Lee at http://www.flickr.com/photos/hjl/101443399/; license details there.)
