ExposureBlog

As someone who has explained my opinions to lots of juries, I know that juries are probably the most important part of any case.  A few years ago I was one of the designated expert witnesses (for the Plaintiff) in a case where the evidence was stacked so high that everyone—even the bailiff and probably the judge thought the Plaintiff would win.  Day after day the evidence piled up, and the Defense seemed unable to respond or refute it.   For two weeks it looked like the perfect storm for the Defendant, a chemical company that, according to testimony required some of its employees to sniff vials containing a toxic chemical. 

You read that right. 

Toward the end of the trial, the defense lawyer had a glazed look on his face.  Then the jury went into their little room to decide.  As I said, everyone thought the Plaintiff would win.

But it didn’t happen.

It didn’t happen because two jurors thought differently, and managed to convince the rest of the jury that the defendant should prevail.  And apparently the reasons didn’t have anything to do with evidence or how each side presented the case.

It’s no wonder then that attorneys pay serious attention to the local culture forming the background of the jury pool.  Criminal defense lawyers sometimes visit a community weeks or months before the trial, shopping at the stores and barbershops, even getting to know some locals by name.  Others might pay a jury consultant to analyze the area—evaluating such things as socio-economics, education, ethnicity , culture regions, politics or even the predominant religion.

As a former sociologist, I believe it’s useful to understand a community.  But I’m not sure that an in-depth cultural analysis is always worth the effort and expense. In the chemical exposure case, I was told that the juror convinced the others because he thought if the company lost the case, it would close and put everyone out of work.   Attitudes like that usually don’t show up on a map.