Jury selection is an interesting process, because it can provide an opportunity to get to know your jurors a little bit, and read between the lines of their answers to determine whether their experiences and predispositions might make them helpful or harmful to your case.
It’s also fascinating to observe the lengths some jurors will go to get out of jury duty. We could write a book about the amusing excuses we’ve heard through the years. But in addition to the people trying desperately to get out of jury service, we have also encountered those who want more than anything to serve. While it’s worth applauding these jurors’ strong sense of civic pride, it probably goes without saying that counsel should proceed with caution when it comes to jurors who seem too eager to sit on the jury.
In one case, an 18-year-old juror enthusiastically volunteered to miss three weeks of his senior year of high school to “fulfill my civic duty.” The judge sternly told him to go back to school. Although this teen’s motivations to serve on a jury were fairly innocent (the last semester of high school is a treat for no one), some jurors don’t have such pure intentions.
For example, we also recall the juror who professed her “open mind” regarding the defendant hospital despite “hearing some negative things,” and she repeatedly asserted her ability to give a fair shot to the defense. She repeatedly denied having any knowledge or experience that would influence her verdict.
However, during a lunch break the juror got to chatting with the bailiff outside the courtroom, to whom she confided her ex-husband was currently embroiled in a major lawsuit against this very hospital regarding care their son received. Fortunately, the bailiff brought this to the judge’s attention and the juror was stricken from the panel – after considerable protestation and insistence this ongoing lawsuit regarding her young child wouldn’t affect her ability to remain fair. It struck us that perhaps her strong, vocal desire to get on this jury, and blatant omission of key information despite specific questioning, was out of a yearning to exact justice on the hospital.
The point is, nobody is unbiased. Where you shop, the products you buy, where you get your news and how you vote all inform your viewpoints, and our personal choices and proclivities can say a lot about who we are. Just ask Google and Facebook, which have successfully commoditized our personal habits. So anyone who says they are an empty canvas, hold no opinions on current events, don’t make any snap judgments in their daily lives and can remain totally, absolutely unbiased and not form any opinions until the very end of closing arguments should be treated with a heavy dose of skepticism.
After all, if the morning of Election Day your neighbor said they still hadn’t formed any opinions about the candidates, had no leanings about who they would vote for and would decide in the voting booth, would you believe them?
Although there are many reasons to watch for jurors who seem too eager to get on your jury, we also understand judges don’t always allow a lot of time (or any) for voir dire. In these cases, once we get a copy of the jury list our research team conducts full social media, public records and Internet audits of your potential jurors. You would be amazed what people put out there on social media, and how much these postings, “likes” and message board opinions can help identify favorable and unfavorable jurors – regardless of what they say under direct questioning.
If you have a trial coming up and are curious about the motivations of those on your venire, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at 714.754.1010 or cluna@juryimpact.net to discuss how we can help.
