Comment on this article:


(Optional. We will not publish your email address here or elsewhere.)


Maximum 5,000 characters. Character count: 0

When you submit this message, you give The Jury Expert permission to publish it on the web. As this is a professional journal, editors will publish comments that are courteous and respectful (even when in disagreement). Thanks for participating in the TJE community!

Recent Comments:

Michael Drake at Strange Doctrines blog has pointed his readers to Grime and Punishment See the blog post

Roland Stark has commented on Persuading with Probability See the comment

Keith Lee has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology and TMI at his blog: An Associate's Mind See the post

Jason Barnes has posted a link on a recent Batson ruling from the 9th Circuit See the link

The University of Texas at Austin Law School Advocacy Program recommends The Jury Expert to their law students See the Law School press release 

Karen Franklin has blogged on What We Do (& Do Not) Know About Jurors & Race See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Emotions in the Courtroom at The Jury Room blog See the blog post

James Goulding has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI at Mean is Out blog See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI at The Jury Room blog See the blog post

Daniel Denis responds to Jason Barnes comment on Persuading with Probability See the response

Walter K. [@noblindfold] has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI See the blog post

Jason Barnes has commented on Persuading with Probability See the comment

David Badertscher has blogged on Hate Crimes and Racial Slurs at Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Jaime and Kevin comment on East Texas Patent Trials See the comment

David Fish comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Tony Duncan has pointed readers of his blog to Jurors and the Internet See the blog post

Daylight Atheism blog has posted on America Hates Atheists See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Mark Bennett has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at Defending People blog See the blog post

'Joe Attorney' has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at Doing Justice blog See the blog post

Joe Markowitz has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Rita Handrich has pointed readers of The Jury Room blog to this issue of TJE See the blog post

John Mittelman has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Victoria Ward has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Jason Barnes comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Brian Patterson comments on Biggest Bully in the Room See the comment

Todd Schlossberg comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

SCOTUS blog references Beneath the Robes & Behind Closed Doors See the blog post

Marjorie Fargo has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Paul Scoptur has pointed readers of his blog, Scoptur's Law to A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the post

Elie Mystal has referenced Beneath The Robes & Behind Closed Doors in Non Sequiturs at Above the Law Blog See the post

Montgomery Delaney has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Ken Broda-Bahm has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Mark Bennett has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Jessica Hoffman has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles is a Bad Idea See the comment

Thaddeus Hoffmeister has blogged on Avoiding Problems During Jury Selection in the Age of Batson at Juries Blog See the post

Ken Broda-Bahm comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles is a Bad Idea See the comment

Steve Schlicht comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stephen G. Schwarz has cited Jurors and Technology in Trial in a post at the Faraci Lange blog See the post

David Shackelford has cited America Hates Atheists at the Shark Attack blog See the blog

Groklaw cites Practical Tools for Staying Organized in Jury Selection & Voir Dire See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Rules Don't Apply to Me at The Jury Room blog See the post

Steven G. Pietrick has commented on From the Conference Room to the Courtroom See the comment

John Buntin has blogged on Rules Don't Apply to Me at 13th Floor blog See the post

Razib Khan has blogged on America Hates Atheists at Gene Expression blog See the post

Steven Gursten has blogged on Injured Body, Injured Mind See the blog post

Gribble the Munchkin comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stuart Bechman comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

science + religion TODAY has blogged on America Hates Atheists See the post

Hemant Mehta has blogged on America Hates Atheists at Friendly Atheist See the post

Stephanie West Allen blogs on Toying with Juror's Emotions at idealawg See the post

Marc Gray comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stephanie West Allen blogs on The Rules Don't Apply to Me at idealawg See the post

Robin Hanson has cited America Hates Atheists in his blog Overcoming Bias See the post

LawyersUSAOnline has cited The Rules Don't Apply to Me See the link

Brian Patterson comments on Using Technology in Litigation See the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Using Technology in Litigation at his firm blog Court & Trial Technology See the post

'Anonymous Atheist' has commented on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Elaine Lewis comments on Goals of Witness Preparation See the comment

Charli Morris comments on "The Prep Question" See the comment

David Shafer comments on "The Prep Question" See the comment

Lee Keller King has commented on Will It Hurt Me in Court See the comment

Doug Keene has blogged at The Jury Room on Sixteen Simple Rules See the blog post

Steve Pietrick has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Melissa Gomez has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Adam Benforado has commented on Law on Display via Situationist Blog See the comment

John Day has blogged at Day on Torts about Jurors & the Internet See the blog post

Rita Handrich has blogged at The Jury Room on Colorism See the blog post

Philip Cave has blogged at Court-Martial Trial Practice on 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Dennis Elias has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Paul Scoptur has pointed his blog readers to this issue of The Jury Expert See Paul's blog

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

K_Yew has pointed his blog readers to 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Feminist Law Profs blog wants to know where the women are. We know where

Lawyers USA has written a piece featuring Katherine James and her article on Live Communication See the article

Steven G. Pietrick has commented on Preparing for the Prep Question See the comment

David Oliver at Mass Torts: State of the Art Blog has cited 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Scott Henson of Grits for Breakfast has cited 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Julie Campanini has blogged on Out & Proud See the blog post

Grey Tesh sends readers of Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog to see 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog post

Tyler Cowen sends his readers from Marginal Revolution blog to see 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See Tyler's blog

Forensic Focus Forums has begun a discussion on Law on Display See the forum posts

Book Forum has cited Don't Poke Scalia on their Omnivore page See the post

Book Forum has cited Jurors & the Internet on their Omnivore page See the post

Christina Spiesel comments on Ted Brooks' blog post regarding Law on Display See the comment

Susan Levy comments on Damages: Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the comment

Edward P. Schwartz comments on Law on Display See the comment

Karen Franklin has blogged on this issue of The Jury Expert See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Jurors and the Internet See the blog post

Publius comments on Enron to Broadcom See the comment

Judge John DiMotto references Jurors and the Internet on his blog See the blog

Ted Brooks has blogged on Law on Display See the blog post

Kevin Boully has blogged on 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Louisville Courier-Journal has published on article (Taser-death verdict challenged over juror's conduct) which references our Jurors & the Internet article See the Louisville Courier-Journal

Florida Bar Journal has published an article (Reining in Juror Misconduct) citing our Jurors & the Internet article See the Florida Bar Journal article

Howard Wasserman has blogged on Don't Poke Scalia at his Federal Courts blog See the blog

Ric Dexter has commented on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need See the comment

David Badertscher has blogged on Jurors & the Internet at his Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog

Phil Cave has blogged on Live Communication at his blog Court-Martial Trial Practice See the blog

Melissa M. Gomez has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement on her blog at the Legal Intelligencer See the blog

Doug Keene has blogged on this issue of The Jury Expert at his firm blog: The Jury Room See the blog

Martin G. commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

E. Oliver commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Gregory Cusimano commented on Live Communication See the comment

Matt M. commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

W. Stuermer commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

David Schwartz commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

Janet commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

Jason Barnes commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Jason Barnes commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

Thaddeus Hoffmeister blogged on Jurors and the Internet at his blog Juries See the blog

Adam Chandler blogged on Don't Poke Scalia at SCOTUS blog See the blog

Thaddeus Hoffmeister commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement at the Jury Box Blog See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement on his blog at Overland Consulting See the blog

T. Guthell, MD has commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

David Badertscher has listed our Table of Contents at his Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Terror Management Theory in the Courtroom See the blog

Joseph C. Markowitz has blogged on Civil Case Mediation See the blog

Phyllis G. Pollack has blogged on Civil Case Mediation See the blog

Victoria Cooke has commented on Graphic Injury Photographs See the comment

Glenn Meyer has commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Paul Silver has commented on Civil Case Mediation See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Arch Stanton comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Ted Brooks has blogged on Anthropomorphism in Technical Presentations See the blog post

Karen Franklin has blogged on Hate Crimes & Racial Slurs See the blog post

Matthew McCusker comments on Civil Case Mediation See the comment

benezra1970 comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

L.L. Stewart commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

benezra1970 has commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Phil Cave has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Doug Keene has blogged on Affirmative Defenses in Product Liability Litigation See the blog post

Vickie Pynchon has commented on Civil Case Mediations See the comment

Cheryl Lubin has commented on Civil Case Mediations See the comment

Anne Reed has blogged on The Jury Expert's September issue See the blog post

Paul Scoptur has blogged on Civil Case Mediations See the blog post

Kevin Boully has blogged on Gender & Assault Weapons See the blog post

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Ken Broda-Bahm has blogged on Jury Damage Awards in Recession See the blog post

Rita Handrich has commented on Hate Crimes & Racial Slurs Read the comment

Phillip Miller has blogged about Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Charli Morris comments on Impact of Graphic Injury Photographs Read the comment

Diane Levin has done a blog post on Observations in Civil Mediation See the blog post

Cameron Reed has blogged about Narcissism in Gen Y See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has done a blog post on Observations in Civil Mediation See the blog post

Edward Schwartz comments on Will It Hurt Me in Court Read the comment

Cheryl Lubin comments on From the Conference Room to the Courtroom Read the comment

Jim Brock comments on Lights, Camera, Action! Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Lights, Camera Action! Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Jury Damage Awards in Times of Recession Read the comment

Sean Overland comments on the Book Review of The Juror Factor Read the comment

Dennis Elias comments on Jury Damage Awards in Times of Recession Read the comment

Gayle Herde comments on Using Your EAR in Voir Dire Read the comment

Bob Schiffmann comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Alison K. Bennett comments on Using Your EAR in Voir Dire Read the comment

Ted Brooks replies to a comment on Jurors and Technology Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Jurors and Technology in Trial Read the comment

Kelley Tobin comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Kacy Miller comments on Jurors and Technology in Trial Read the comment

Charli Morris comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Carol Phillips comments on Gen Y & Narcissism Prevalence Read the comment

Diane Wyzga comments on Juror Stress Read the comment

Edward P. Schwartz comments on Turning Expert Witnesses Into Teachers Read the comment

Phillip Miller comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Phillip Miller comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ric Dexter comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Stacy Fergurson comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Jeri Kagel comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Rita Handrich comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Sean Overland responds to Jeri Kagel's comment Read the response

George Kich comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Kacy Miller responds to comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Laura Rochelois comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Sonia Chopra comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Bob Kaufman comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Steve Laird comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Steve Laird comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Jeri Kagel comments on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Dave Zehner comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Sean Overland responds to Pat McEvoy's comment on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Brian Bornstein responds to Steven Gursten's comment on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Jason Barnes responds to Ted Brooks' comment on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ralph Mongeluzo comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Diane Wyzga responds to Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Jason Barnes responds to Patrick Norha's comment on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Patrick Norha comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Douglas L. Keene comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Bruce A. Beal comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Ken Broda-Bahm comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Pat McEvoy comments on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Steven Gursten comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Philip Monte comments on Ethical Issues in Racial Profiling Read the comment

Valerie Hans comments on the book review: The American Jury.
Read the comment
Elaine Lewis comments on The Preparation of Narcissistic Witnesses.
Read the comment

 

The Biggest Bully In the Room

Comments 1 | Rating 0

 

The Biggest Bully In the Room

by Trisha Renaud


Jurors these days seem to make news almost as much for their misbehavior as for the decisions they make.

First, there are a multitude of stories about jurors who refuse to follow the rules and use Google to satisfy their curiosity or hop on Facebook to share their opinions with all their Facebook "friends." Occasionally, however, somewhat more lurid tales of jurors behaving badly are reported in the press. These accounts of jury room conduct feature everything from incivility to threats to physical violence.

Consider these recent examples of deliberations-turned-ugly:

2008. Miami. After issuing a guilty verdict in four murders on a charter boat, three jurors announced that their verdicts had been the product of badgering and bullying. They described how some jurors had pounded their fists on the table and shouted repeatedly.

2008. Washington. During deliberations in the federal corruption trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, jurors demand that one of their number be removed. They wrote the judge to complain that the juror in question was "being rude, disrespectful and unreasonable. She has had violent outbursts with other jurors and jurors are getting off course."

2009. New York. Lawyers waiting on a verdict in the suit against Merck over its osteoporosis drug Fosamax heard loud shouts multiple times coming from the jury room. One juror sent the judge a note that read, in part: "I am being intimidated, threatened, screamed at, as well as verbally insulted that I am stupid because I do not agree. I have had 2 physical threats against me, a chair thrown and a verbal threat to beat me up. I need a police escort out of here. And I am afraid to come back ..."

2009. New Orleans. A juror on the murder trial of rapper Corey "C-Murder" Miller said she changed her vote to guilty in order to end deliberations and stop the other jurors from tormenting a younger juror. "This thing had to come to an end for this girl's health, her sanity," the juror told the Times-Picayune. "They literally made this 20-year-old girl so violently ill. ... She couldn't function anymore." Added the juror: "My time in deliberations was a vacation in hell. People turned into monsters."

2009. New York City. In the high-profile Astor trial, one female juror reported that she felt personally threatened by another female juror who moved menacingly toward her and flashed "gang signs" her way. Other jurors now dispute her account.


2010. Detroit. After a mistrial in a political corruption trial, jurors described six nightmarish days of deliberations. "There was yelling and screaming and there were fights," the foreman told the press. Another juror reported that the lone holdout - the only African-American on the panel - slammed down a binder on the table, accusing the others of wanting to "hang the black man." The holdout now reports receiving harassing telephone calls and mail.


And, lest anyone think such conduct is only a recent phenomenon, consider this extreme example from two decades ago:


1990. Chicago. During deliberations over the fate of accused murderer Madison Hobley, the jury foreman, a police officer, produced a gun, laid it on the jury table and announced "We'll have a verdict." The jury convicted Hobley, but he was later pardoned by the Illinois governor after revelations of police misconduct, including torture to extract confessions.

So just how common is jury room bullying? While vigorous argument and a push for unanimity are a natural part of deliberations, how often does the debate turn to incivility or does the pressure become coercive? And, most importantly, what can be done to prevent it?

A 2001 British study into many aspects of jury decision-making interviewed 312 jurors from 48 New Zealand trials.1 In six trials, some jurors reported feeling intimidated during deliberations. This typically occurred when the foreperson was ineffective at managing deliberations and a juror with a dominant personality took over the discussion. In four cases, jurors reported that such domineering jurors had free rein to insult and denigrate other jurors.

Yet virtually no research existed on the extent of jury room intimidation until earlier this year when Australian academic Judith Fordham of Murdoch University released the results of several years of research. The study was commissioned by Australian authorities after concerns were raised that jurors had been intimidated into acquitting defendants in several high-profile trials.

Fordham was allowed unprecedented access to conduct post-trial interviews with Western Australian jurors. The study included questionnaire information from 913 jurors who served on 218 randomly chosen trials, as well as 58 jurors from 17 "targeted" trials involving prior allegations of juror intimidation. In addition to the survey on jurors' trial experiences, 130 jurors were interviewed in person.

Her findings were released April 1 in a report called "Juror Intimidation? An investigation into the prevalence and nature of juror intimidation in Western Australia."2 On the key question - did jurors feel uneasy, threatened or unsafe during or after the trial -- 14.3% of jurors in the random trials said yes. In the small group of jurors from the targeted trials, a much higher percentage -- 33% -- said yes.

Nonetheless, Fordham found that incidents of actual intimidation (rather than felt intimidation) were relatively rare and these threats emanated mostly from the accused person on trial. She concluded there was no evidence in most cases that such intimidation affected verdicts. However, incidents of perceived intimidation were much more frequent.

Fordham also found no correlation between either gender or age in who reported intimidation.

An unexpected finding was what occurred in the jury room: The most common form of intimidation was bullying from other jurors. Also, effective intimidation - the type of coercion that would cause a juror to later regret a vote - was more likely to occur in the jury room. In 8 of 11 instances, intimidation from other panel members caused jurors to change their vote.

Some jurors also reported discomfort about others' conduct during deliberations. Of jurors from the random trials, 24% reported being uncomfortable with statements of other jurors, 14.2% with offensive statements of other jurors, 12.9% with another juror's shouting, and 15.7% with another juror's emotional intensity.

No doubt, by the time jurors get to the point of deliberating, some are already stressed. They've had to deal with disruption in their life and possibly the loss of income. Some are distressed over the nature of the evidence, while others worry about the decision they must now make.

A 1998 survey of jurors conducted by the National Center for State Courts found that on short (one to three days) trials, more than a quarter of jurors reported feeling stress, while on trials lasting more than 21 days, nearly all - 96% report stress.3 The NCSC report found that symptoms of stress could include increased anxiety, frustration, anger and hostility, and that deliberations were particularly stressful for most jurors.

Despite universal agreement that incivility and intimidation should never be part of a juror's experience, there has been little discussion about how to address the problem. The British study cited above noted that those jurors who felt coerced by another juror had received no advice from the court on strategies for dealing with such situations. Given that jurors naturally look to the judge for guidance on what is expected of them, the bench is a logical place to begin. One judge has written recently about the obligations of judges to ensure civility during deliberations.

"Jury deliberations should not be a free for all," writes Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John DiMotto in his blog Bench and Bar Experiences. "They should not emulate a WWE 'Raw' television show."4

DiMotto says that, in both jury selection and in jury instructions, judges should tell jurors what is expected of them. And along with the usual instructions about not discussing the case or conducting independent research, judge should emphasize that jurors must treat each other with civility and respect. "It is the responsibility of the judge to convey this information to the jury early on, and often, during trial," says DiMotto.

Judges may want to urge jurors to set ground rules for deliberations. Such rules might include no shouting, no interrupting, no insults and no ridiculing of other jurors' views. In addition, jurors should be instructed to report abusive or coercive conduct to the court when it occurs, not after the verdict. While neither the court nor attorneys can dictate how jurors organize their deliberations, offering procedural suggestions may defuse the frustrations that often arise when jurors don't know how to proceed.

A number of courts make use of a pamphlet of The American Judicature Society entitled Behind Closed Doors: A Guide for Jury Deliberations. Along with suggestions for structuring deliberations, it features guidelines for civil discourse, including respecting others' opinions and a prohibition on bullying.

Lawyers can also contribute to setting a tone of civility by raising the issue in voir dire (where such questions are allowed) and in closing argument. Describing to jurors what happens when they retire to the jury room - in terms of sharing views, listening respectfully to each other, and learning from each other's wisdom - can serve as a reminder of the need for calm discourse, particularly in emotional or high-profile cases.

In voir dire, attorneys may want to secure jurors' commitment that, if selected, they would be willing to examine the evidence and patiently listen to the views of other jurors in striving to reach a verdict. Even if attorneys hope to encourage dissenters on the panel, the questions in voir dire and the message in closing argument can be to urge those jurors to be steadfast, but calm.

Trisha Renaud is a trial consultant based in Atlanta, Georgia. Previously she was a legal journalist. She currently writes a regular column on jury issues for the Atlanta legal newspaper. Read more at www.trial-advantage.com.

 

References

1Tinsley, Yvette. Juror Decision-Making: A Look Inside the Jury Room. The British Criminology Conference: Selected Proceedings. Volume 4. Papers from the British Society of Criminology Conference, Leicester, July 2000. This volume published October 2001.

2Fordham, Judith. Juror Intimidation? An investigation into the prevalence and nature of juror intimidation in Western Australia. Report submitted to the Attorney General of Western Australia. Edited version published April 1, 2010.

3Through the Eyes of the Juror: A Manual for Addressing Juror Stress, National Center for State Courts 1998. Appendix here

4DiMotto, John. Judge's Responsibility to Encourage Juror Civility. Bench and Bar Experiences. January 26, 2010.



Full Issue   Full Article   Send to a Friend   Rate this article:

Article Comments (1)

Brian Patterson wrote:
May-21-2010
Interesting article, and something I hadn't really given much thought. Because it happens behind closed doors, it's easy to overlook the actual process of how decisions get made by juries. Other than serving on a jury ourselves, mock trials are the closest approximation to seeing the deliberation process, but even then, the stakes are not nearly as high so participants are not as likely to resort to bullying.

I agree that on cases which are likely to be particularly contentions, judges ...[More]
Comment on this article:


(Optional. We will not publish your email address here or elsewhere.)


Maximum 5,000 characters. Character count: 0

When you submit this message, you give The Jury Expert permission to publish it on the web. As this is a professional journal, editors will publish comments that are courteous and respectful (even when in disagreement). Thanks for participating in the TJE community!
Publication Information

The Jury Expert is now on Twitter (@thejuryexpert)! Follow us for daily news relevant to improving litigation advocacy, understanding jury behavior, resources that aid your practice, and sometimes, stuff that's just plain fun.
http://www.twitter.com/thejuryexpert

The Jury Expert [ISSN: 1943-2208] is published bimonthly by the:
American Society of Trial Consultants
1941 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093
Phone: (410) 560-7949
Fax: (410) 560-2563
http://www.astcweb.org/

Editors of The Jury Expert
Rita R. Handrich, PhD — Editor

Kevin R. Boully, PhD — Associate Editor

Ralph Mongeluzo, Esq. -- Advertising Editor

 

The Jury Expert logo was designed in 2008 by:
Vince Plunkett of Persuasium Consulting
The publisher of The Jury Expert is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. The accuracy of the content of articles included in The Jury Expert is the sole responsibility of the authors, not of the publication. The publisher makes no warranty regarding the accuracy, integrity, or continued validity of the facts, allegations or legal authorities contained in any public record documents provided herein. Authors retain copyright of their written work. Author supplied graphics which illustrate technology or design ideas are considered the intellectual property of those authors. The Jury Expert itself is copyrighted by the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC).