During 10 years of jury research we have learned that one of the biggest differences between favorable and problematic jurisdictions is how the jurors view the concept of a plaintiff’s personal responsibility. In some of the more conservative jurisdictions, a pregnant plaintiff who misses a handful of prenatal appointments becomes the primary focus of criticism, whereas in more plaintiff-friendly venues, a plaintiff who started prenatal care at eight months creates an increased expectation for caregivers to “do more” to ensure a healthy baby is delivered.
Likewise, a medical malpractice case involving a patient who smoked against doctors’ orders and refused to make diet changes can prompt divergent interpretations depending on the makeup of the jury. After all, in certain jurisdictions where many of your jurors are themselves smokers, don’t count calories and have never heard of CrossFit, they are less likely to be receptive to arguments that the plaintiff’s own health choices led to a poor outcome.
Now, when you just read that article, what was your reaction? It could probably fit into two general opinions:
- If Mr. Jarman hadn’t been stealing, he never would have been injured so he shouldn’t blame others for his injury, or
- Regardless of what Mr. Jarman was doing, the police hurt him and it’s only fair to compensate him.
The point of all this is that every audience is different and it is always to your benefit to know what kind of audience you’ll be facing, as well as their experiences, outlooks and mindsets, before setting foot in a courtroom. If you have an upcoming case and want to better understand the worldview of your particular jurisdiction, and how it could affect your case, please contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010.
