Though it seems to happen with less and less frequency these days, the goal of most litigators is actually to litigate cases.  Being successful in trial depends, in part, on the ability to connect with the jury, a relatively anonymous panel of citizens about whom litigators only know very limited biographical information.

Because lawyers do not know who their jurors will be until trial begins, it is relatively impossible to reach conclusions about how a particular jury will respond to a given trial presentation.  As a result, litigators are forced to make decisions about their cases based largely upon personal experience, anecdotal evidence, conventional wisdom, and old-fashioned stereotyping.

Because secrecy is a crucial and fundamental component to the jury process, empirical or analytical studies of juror behavior are few and far between. However, a recent research study by the U.K. Ministry of Justice provided some interesting insight into jury tendencies.

The study’s author examined over 68,000 jury verdicts, post-verdict surveys of jurors, and case simulations with real juries, but only examined criminal cases.  The author’s goal was to answer the question, are juries fair? Much of the study was designed to analyze the role played by race in criminal convictions, but it also revealed interesting findings related to gender differences, the effect of technology on juror behavior and the ability of jurors to understand jury instructions.  Among the most interesting findings were the following:

Race

• After simulating identical cases before real juries in which only the race of defendants and victims were varied, the author concluded that “verdicts of all-White juries did not discriminate against [Black and other minority] defendants. Jury verdicts…showed no tendency for all-White juries to convict a Black or Asian defendant more than a White defendant.”

Gender

• Female jurors were more likely to be in favor of conviction at the start of jury deliberations, but were more open to persuasion to change their vote during deliberations.
• Male jurors rarely changed their minds.

Conviction Rates

• Cases where the state of mind of a criminal defendant was at issue, such as attempted murder and intent to commit grievous bodily harm have the lowest conviction rates.
• Conviction rates at all courts ranged from 53 percent to 69 percent, dispelling the myth that there are some jurisdictions where juries rarely convict.
• Two-thirds of all juries are presented with more than one charge on which to reach a verdict. The likelihood of a jury returning any guilty verdict against a defendant increased with the number of charges against a defendant.

Jury Instructions

• Over half of the jurors surveyed perceived the judge’s directions as easy to understand, but only 31 percent of those jurors actually understood the directions in the legal terms used by the judge.
• When jurors were provided with a written copy of the jury instructions, the proportion of jurors who fully understood the legal questions in the case in the terms used by the judge increased from 31 percent to 48 percent.
• Younger jurors were better able to understand jury instructions than older jurors, with comprehension decreasing as the age of the juror increased.

Outside Research

• In high-profile cases, 26 percent of jurors admitted seeing information on the Internet about the case during trial, while 12 percent said they intentionally looked.
• 81 percent of jurors who admitted looking for information on the Internet were over 30 years of age.

The fact that this research analyzes tendencies of UK jurors limits its value to U.S. litigators.  In addition, the study only examined criminal cases and it is unclear how applicable its findings are to civil cases.  Nevertheless, the findings are insightful and thought-provoking.  A similar study in the U.S. court system would be fascinating, as would a more narrow study focused on tendencies of Maryland juries and jurisdictions (and perhaps even the tendencies of Maryland judges).

Powered by Bookmarkify™