Does defendant's fate rest with the foreperson?

Many different types of people show up for jury duty. Each juror brings personal experiences, ideologies, and preconceived notions into the courtroom. While jurors might have distinct viewpoints when listening to the information presented at trial, one consensus generally must be made during deliberations. A significant component of the deliberation process, therefore, is the voice of that consensus: the foreperson.

What is a foreperson?

A jury foreperson is a member of the jury elected by either the judge or the other jury members (depending on the State) who acts as the spokesperson for the jury. The duties of a foreperson include: ensuring all jurors are present when deliberations begin, confirming that all jurors understand the procedures and have a chance to participate, providing each juror with the opportunity to ask questions, communicating with the judge on behalf of the jury, and announcing the verdict.

Who is a foreperson?

While the judge may occasionally choose the foreperson, the jury will typically elect a foreperson instead. The foreperson may be chosen based on any number of factors, such as age, employment, education, specialized knowledge, leadership abilities, and confidence. One recent article noted that the foreperson tends to be a man or woman with an assertive disposition who has served on a jury previously.

Peripheral cues are also likely to determine the jury’s choice of foreperson. These types of peripheral cues include whichever juror is first to speak and, similarly, whichever juror is first to mention the need to choose a foreperson. One mock trial study found that the juror at the head of the table is likely to be voted the foreperson. Whatever the deliberation method, the foreperson is often chosen quickly.

Importance of the foreperson:

The foreperson provides structure to jury deliberations. Rather than having twelve people all attempting to get their viewpoints out at one time, the foreperson guides the group in the deliberation style. The discussion is either (1) an evidence-driven inquiry, where discussion revolves around nailing down the evidence exhibits and facts of the case or (2) a verdict-driven inquiry, where discussion revolves around choosing a verdict. The foreperson is responsible for managing the discussions and keeping the group on track. 

Dangers of the foreperson:

The jury foreperson is highly influential to the deliberation and outcome of the trial. Not only does the foreperson speak more often than the other jurors, a recent study cited by The Jury Expert has indicated that jurors tend to view the foreperson’s viewpoint as more important than other jurors. This is particularly troublesome because allowing the foreperson more power than the other jurors places the decision into the foreperson’s hands alone, effectively destroying the democratic process.

Additionally, the foreperson cannot be representative of the entire community, which is the central reason for a jury in the first place. If jurors allow the foreperson to sway each vote simply because of her age, employment, education level, or even just because she happened to sit at the head of the table that day, then the outcome will likely not be an accurate reflection of the community’s conviction. Instead, it would be the conviction of one.

While the jury foreperson is a valuable aspect of the judicial process, we should be actively searching to improve this role in order to ensure that those in our community who have even the softest of voices are not stifled by one vociferous personality.