Effective Defense Voir Dire: Making Sense of Jurors' Experiences

Knowing the backgrounds of jurors enables trial counsel to conduct an effective voir and to communicate easily with jurors during trials WHAT every lawyer wants is a favorable verdict. Effective voir dire can be the key to that. A good voir dire followed by an effective opening statement can shape the direction that a case will take. A competent jury consultant can assist an attorney in communicating with the jury by making predictions regarding how each juror will view the case. These predictions are based on discovering individual juror's biases. A juror's past experiences, including any exposure to media coverage, creates biases. Jury research is a means for identifying these biases and dispelling stereotypes. Besides understanding jurors' experiences and perceptions, lawyers must recognize other obstacles to effective presentation of the evidence and constructing clear analogies. JURORS' EXPERIENCES The strongest influence on jurors is their particular experience with and exposure to issues pertaining to the trial. During their lives, jurors have experienced many things that filter how they will view the trial process. The closer their experiences match the central case issue of a case, the stronger their convictions about the issue. Searching for the behavior or experiences that reveal the core belief of each juror is critical. This epicenter, so to speak, will influence convictions in the deliberation room. The closer to the epicenter, the stronger the experience. If on January 17, 1994, you were at the epicenter of the Northridge, California, earthquake, your experience with earthquakes is stronger than if you were 30 miles away. Someone 30 miles from the epicenter has a more memorable experience than someone 300 miles away. If more than 300 miles from the epicenter, but watching television news, people may believe that they know what it is like to be in an earthquake. Attitudes are more likely to change when there are no personal experiences reflecting the issue. During voir dire, jurors could be asked about their attitudes about drunk driving, but it is more revealing to ask about their experiences with automobile accidents or drinking. If a person was a passenger in a deadly accident, that experience will never be forgotten. A bystander witnessing a fatal accident may remember it. Seeing a serious accident on television news may fix it in one's memory, but it will fade away more quickly. Again, the closer one is to the actual experience, the stronger the effect of that experience. Experiences are a stronger determinant of verdicts than attitudes. Individuals are products of their genetic makeup and environment. Events and cognitive processing shape their attitudes. Attitudes shift, but events and experiences are unchangeable. THE MEDIA In deciding on a verdict, jurors draw on their experiences and their knowledge base, which can vary drastically. Jurors, other than jurors who are lawyers or law students, obtain most of their knowledge of the law from television. A. What Jurors Have Heard/Seen/Read Even if a particular case does not have a high profile, jurors have heard or read something about the legal system prior to their jury service. Virtually all jurors watch television. Some jurors have become addicted to depiction of trials a la Ally McBeal, The Practice, LA Law, Matlock, People's Court, and Perry Mason, all of which have been hit television series. John Grisham's many popular novels often show up on the laps of jurors waiting to be called into the courtroom. Whether television drama accurately shows the courtroom, this depiction becomes part of the jurors' knowledge base. What matters to the outcome of the trial are the perspectives that the jurors bring to the courtroom. B. Combating Negative Media Influences If there has been a toxic spill, chances are the newspapers and television stations in the vicinity of the venue have covered the story and jurors have seen the coverage. …