The King County jury selection system picked me to come in 6 times for jury duty, and of those 6 times, I was picked to be on a jury 5 times. The last time, the jurors elected me head juror.
Having been on five juries, and selected to come in six times, has given me enough time and experience with the system to offer some reflections that may be helpful for others selected for their first time.
Selection process not so random
King County Superior Court insists that jury duty selection is 100% random, based on driver's license registrations. But I and many others are very skeptical that it is as random as they think it is. After first getting my driver's license, I went about 15 years without being selected. Then I was selected usually every other year almost like clockwork until I had been selected 6 times. Then I was never selected again; it's been about 10 years since the last time.
That doesn't sound very random, does it? But it's a very common experience. In fact, I've never spoken about it to a person who's jury selection experience did sound random, and I've asked many people. It would be very interesting to see the actual algorithm used that they imagine is so random. I'd bet a nickel there's a flaw in it that makes it so nonrandom.
Jurors Are the Least Informed
As a juror, prepare to be frustrated at being required to make a very important decision without important information that everyone else in the courtroom knows. Both attorneys will be at pains to keep you in the dark about various pieces of information that they think might influence the decision away from the decision they want you to make.
One of my cases was of a middle-aged man who had sexually propositioned a minor. We were tasked with deciding whether the violation fulfilled the requirements for a misdemeanor, and if so, whether it also fulfilled the requirements for a felony. We were given descriptions of each set of requirements. The first was easy but the second took some thought and discussion. We decided that it did in fact meet the requirement for felony. After the case the prosecutor came to thank us, explaining that this man had already been convicted THIRTEEN TIMES at the misdemeanor level, with trivial consequences for him, and that they'd been trying to convict at the felony level so they could put a stop to his propositions of minors.
Another case was of a man who assaulted a woman in a car. The key witness was not allowed to say much. With some difficulty we reached a guilty verdict. After the case the witness came to us to tell us all about what he had seen that he had not been allowed to tell us during the trial. We were all relieved that we had made the right decision, without having that important information at the time.
I have no doubt that there are many cases where the wrong decision is reached due entirely to withholding critical information from jurors. It's legal but abominable. My advice: as a juror there's nothing you can legally do about it, so make your decision as best you can with what information you are given. If it later turns out that information withheld from you would have changed your mind if you had known it, it's the system's fault, not yours. So don't beat yourself up about it. DON'T go out to the crime scene yourself or anything else the judge tells you not to do.
Confirmation Bias
During the trial, jurors are under strict orders not to discuss the trial until it's over and jury deliberation begins. Bring a good book or three, or a lot of work to do on your laptop. Even if you bring plenty to keep yourself busy, you'll still get lots of practice doing lengthy small talk with complete strangers with whom you have little in common.
But when it's time for deliberation to begin, there is often a big surprise. It's as if there were really two different trials, with different evidence and testimony, where some of the jurors went to one trial and others went to the other. Some of the jurors have little or no memory of evidence and testimony that other jurors remember very well -- and vice versa.
But in fact you were all at the same trial, all sincerely trying to listen closely. What gives? The reason for this is an interesting quirk of human nature called Confirmation Bias.
How does it work? During the trial, it's normal to start leaning toward one verdict or the other. There's no use trying to deny it. It's human nature. Resistance is futile. It's going to happen.
But that tendency in itself is not the problem. The problem is what happens next. Once you start leaning toward one verdict or the other, you start mentally pouncing on all evidence and testimony that confirms your leaning. And more importantly and dangerously, you start dismissing all evidence and testimony that contradicts your leaning. Soon after, you forget the evidence and testimony that you dismissed, while remembering very well whatever confirms your leaning.
So what can you do about it? First, just being aware of the tendency, and that it's normal human nature, and that it's going to happen to every jury member on every jury, is the most important first step. But there's more you can do.
The more you find yourself leaning toward one verdict or the other, the more important it is to make sure you fully understand every word, and every shred of evidence, that points toward the other verdict. Because your tendency is to dismiss it and forget it. Make every effort to understand the other side's case well enough that you can state their case as well and completely as they can state it themselves -- so well that they would have nothing to add.
Then you'll go into jury deliberation knowing that you attended "both" trials. You won't be surprised by anything brought up by jurors who disagree, and you won't wonder if it was really said at all, or said in quite the way they remember it. Because you'll remember it very well yourself -- and perhaps will be able to point out some nuance about it that they dismissed and forgot because it didn't confirm their bias.
Majority Doesn't Rule
The 12 members of the jury are expected to come to a UNANIMOUS decision. When you come out with your verdict, the judge will ask each and every juror, one by one, two questions: (a) was this YOUR decision? and (b) was this the decision of the jury? Everyone must answer yes to both questions, or you are all sent back to try again.
If deciding the case was easy, it probably would not have gone to a jury in the first place. The fact that it is a jury trial at all is an indication that there will be some disagreement among people who hear the case as to what the verdict should be. You can expect that some of the jurors will disagree with you. So how do you come to a unanimous decision? If you don't, it's a mistrial. Judges hate, hate, hate mistrials. You'll be sent back many, many times to try again and again and again before the judge will seriously consider declaring a mistrial.
Mistrials are expensive and inefficient. Court workers of all kinds aren't just twiddling their thumbs while the jury deliberates; they're efficiently doing other work, even if deliberation takes days or even weeks. But if a mistrial is declared, they have to reschedule the trial and go through it all again. Key witnesses may be difficult bring together again. A traumatized plaintiff may have to face her attacker's vicious attorney on the witness stand again. An innocent defendant may have to go back to jail to wait months or years for the trial to be scheduled again. As a juror the system depends on you to make every effort to come to a unanimous decision and so avoid a mistrial.
But just how do you do that? Some of your fellow jurors may be as stubborn as they are wrong.
What you have to do is patiently go through your reasoning, step by step, with each other, patiently answering probing questions about your reasoning. Eventually you'll reach a point were someone feels something very strongly but not for any rational reason. If you're that person, it's your job -- the system is depending on you -- to give up your irrational feeling and go with reason.
On the other hand, some people just have difficulty articulating themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean they're irrational. If you are better able to articulate yourself than jury members with whom you disagree, be patient with them and try to help them -- sincerely -- to try to articulate themselves.
Attorneys think jurors are stupid
It's a fact. Attorneys think jurors are stupid. They seem to think jurors have the mental capacity of about a 5 year old child. But why? I've been on 5 juries and although I've certainly met flawed jurors, I've not met a stupid one, or at least not nearly as stupid as attorneys seem to think we are. So what makes attorneys think so?
At the beginning of the trial, each attorney gets about 10 minutes to tell the jury what they think is important about the evidence that will be presented and the testimony they will hear. Then at the end of the trial they each get about another 10 minutes to summarize what they think are the main points the jury should consider during deliberation.
Then the jury goes back to the jury room, and, in my experience, more often than not, agree that the attorneys did not address the most pertinent testimony, and that the attorneys' speeches were of little or no help in coming to a verdict. The disconnect is often so large that it almost seems the attorneys weren't paying attention to what was said on the witness stand.
So the jurors eventually come to a verdict based on the evidence and testimony, and not on the often largely irrelevant blathering of the attorneys. There is usually much disagreement and argument among jurors at least at first, but not once did I ever see it be about what either attorney said. If the attorneys truly believe that they were telling us all about the most important points, no wonder they think jurors are stupid.
The attorneys often seem to see only their own side of the case, and don't seem to take into consideration any of the points in the other side's favor. So they often emphasize points that are easily shot down by other points. To the jurors, that makes the attorneys look stupid. I remember one case where I was just amazed at how unbelievably stupid both attorneys were, seemingly blind to the obvious best arguments for both sides, each emphasizing instead only points that were easily skewered. The two attorneys seemed by far the two dimmest bulbs in the courtroom.
It seems to me the attorneys are so focused on the points they are trying to bring out and the points they are trying to suppress that they don't notice other points, which perhaps in some cases did not come out at all until the trial. Also they often seem distracted when the other attorney is busy questioning a witness. But jurors are focused the whole time.
I think the main reason attorneys think jurors are stupid is because the attorneys live in their own world of confirmation bias (see above). Unlike the jurors, who's confirmation bias is confronted by the conflicting confirmation bias of other jurors, attorneys don't have to discuss it with 11 peers until they come to unanimous agreement. So they each live blissfully in their own confirmationally biased world until those "stupid" jurors mess everything up with a "wrong" verdict.
No comments:
Post a Comment