The Disconnect Between Jurors and Attorneys

           

There is an obvious disconnect between jurors and attorneys. This seems like a natural scenario, since jurors are called to be impartial while attorneys are zealously representing their clients. However, certain actions attorneys take seem to cause more distrust by jurors. Furthermore, attorneys are only asking jurors questions in voir dire in order to further an agenda they came into the courtroom with. This might be causing attorneys to be too focused on what they are looking for and not focused enough on trying to make a real connection with the panel members. Accordingly, a study using mock juries showed that defense attorneys in particular rated their performance in several aspects of trial higher than the jury did.

Jurors Distrust Attorneys

Jurors distrust attorneys when the attorneys fail to remember their manners:

·      Lack of eye contact

·      Staring down at the jurors

·      Joking or banter with other attorneys

·      Coming across as smug

o   Not smiling

o   Arms crossed

o   Raised eyebrows

o   Not respectful of opposing counsel

Jurors dislike when attorneys overly use theatrics:

·      They don’t like emotional attorneys or putting on a show

·      Jurors don’t like their time to be wasted

·      They don’t like being distracted from other evidence

Attorneys are Using Jurors

            The plaintiff typically comes into jury selection to weed out these people:

·      People who will sympathize with the defense

·      People who fail to understand the plaintiff’s position

·      People not used to fighting injustice

·      People who like big corporations

The defense comes into jury selection to select these people:

·      People who place responsibility on someone other than defense

·      People who appreciate the humanization of the defendant

·      People that have defended this type of claim before

·      People who are business managers or insurance providers

Effect on the Verdict

A study conducted came to some interesting conclusions about how plaintiff and defense attorneys can influence the verdict:

·      The plaintiff can influence the jury in a positive way by being well prepared. This might be attributed to the fact that they typically carry the burden, so were expected to present more evidence.

·      The defense’s opening statement was more of a predictor of the verdict than the prosecutor’s opening. However, the better the opening was the less likely the defense would win the case. This was speculated to be because opinions were formed more rapidly in opening, or because the defense lost credibility when they couldn’t live up to what they promised to prove.

While the facts and evidence should always remain the main focus of a case, lawyers would benefit from taking the time to form mock juries, meet with trial consultants, or at the very least, speak with jurors after their trials. Gaining insight into how jurors perceive an attorney could be the way to defeat a disconnect between that attorney and their future jury.  

Author: Jamie-Lee Denton

Candidate for Juris Doctor, May 2019

SMU Dedman School of Law 

Connect with me!