The modern jury trial
is much like a battlefield. Each side has a general, the attorney, who relies
on accurate intelligence to field her resources and strategize an effective
legal argument. The importance of reliable information begins with jury
selection. Indeed, so important is this phase of the trial process that over
the last few decades jury consultants became a valuable tool to those who can
afford their often-prohibitive
expense. As a result, clients who can afford consultants
are able to provide their attorneys with a competitive advantage, increasing
the chances of victory. Recently, however, a
study conducted to determine the effect of behavior mimicry
suggests that attorneys may be able to gauge juror verdict preference and
perceptiveness. The implications of the study are significant for attorneys who
must do without the aid of consultants. Attentiveness to jurors’ physical and
nonverbal mimicry may enable attorneys to better conduct voir dire and assess
the jury’s receptiveness to legal arguments.
The study, conducted
with a mock-trial, implemented a set of pre-determined physical and nonverbal
acts that would be monitored for mimicry among the jurors. The results suggest
that jurors who mimicked an attorney’s behavior were more likely to agree with
the legal argument asserted at the time of the mimicked behavior. Furthermore,
attorneys who mimicked juror behavior were more likely to make a favorable
impression on the jury. Although the introduction of new evidence continually
changed jurors’ verdict preferences, the mimicry response was reliable for the
purpose of moment-to-moment evaluations. Therefore, attorneys who pay attention
to mimicry among jurors may be able to argue their cases more efficiently.
Determining juror
bias is patently
difficult. Jurors are often
reluctant or unconsciously resistant to admitting their own prejudices.
Mimicry, however, is an entirely subconscious response to external social stimuli.
Therefore, while an attorney can never be certain that a juror is answering
questions truthfully; mimicry is unlikely to be an act of deception. The
ability to look at a group of prospective jurors and determine those whom are
likely to render a favorable verdict is immensely valuable. Attorneys whose
clients are unable to afford trial consultant fees ought to consider behavior
mimicry to even the playing field or, preferably, gain the advantage of a more
receptive jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment