Contextual Perceptions: Are cases decided before the evidence is presented?

"He looked exactly like someone who would do this sort of thing." 

This was a response that I received during my juror interview after asking whether there might have been any contextual or circumstances that weighed on the jurors' minds other than the evidence presented. 

My juror was part of a child molestation trial wherein a grandfather and caretaker was accused of inappropriate behavior with his 6 year old granddaughter. I found myself wondering, "what does someone who might commit this sort of act typically look like?"My interviewee described the defendant as an older, white, scraggly and unkept male with poor personal hygiene. Based on the fact that there was almost no competent evidence of inappropriate behavior presented at trial, 10/12 jurors voted together for a non-guilty verdict. There were 2 hold-out jurors, however, who were convinced from the moment the defendant entered the courtroom, based on his appearance, that he was guilty and nothing was going to change their minds. And no one did. After 2 days of deliberation, the result was a hung jury. 

In continuation of the discussion initiated by classmate Sara regarding perception of disabilities in defendants, I expand the inquiry to any and all possible descriptors of defendants. Be it race, ethnicity, height, weight, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, hired counsel, or any other potential identifier one may attribute to defendants, it seems that jurors often decide the case before they hear any evidence whatsoever. 

As someone who has always dreamt of and now intends to devote my life to the law and, specifically, trial work, the sanctity of the jury system is something I hold near and dear. Regardless of the client I'm representing or the opponent I'm facing, I would hope that each case and cause of action is determined independent of these superficial factors. Decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of individuals should be based exclusively on the evidence and I therefore believe it's imperative that structures be in place to assure this to the best of our abilities. 

So, where do these responsibilities lie? With the legislature? With jurors? With the attorneys? With the Courts? With the defendants themselves? 

I believe the answer, in short, is all of the above. We, as collective members of the legal profession, must work in harmony to avoid these contextual, extra-evidential perceptions. 

As a defendant, I would assure that I'm putting my best foot forward and know that I'm being judged by my every action (and just being judged). As an attorney, I must ensure that my client is aware of these perceptions, that the jury knows to ignore these perceptions, and that my client receives a fair trial from start to finish. As the judge, I would hope to maintain the sanctity of my courtroom and of my trials especially. And as the legislature, I would examine data based on all of these individual characteristics and determine where gaps in the legislation need to be filled and corrected. 

It is important we keep an eye out for the over prevalence of contextual perceptions in our trials and assure that the evidence is given the weight that our constitution intended it to hold.