One of the advantages of a mock trial is that you are able to see both individual and group final verdicts. But how do these group and individual verdicts compare with each other? And what factors can make a group verdict higher than an individual's - or vice versa? After analyzing over 50 cases that had robust data on group and individual damage amounts, we found some striking results.
We conducted this research by looking at the average of all individual responses and comparing them to the average group response. After analyzing all of the percent differences between groups, the group damages were, on average, 19% higher than the average individual damages. This was not surprising, since oftentimes jurors who want to give lower amounts can feel pressured to give in to the empathy of awarding plaintiffs a higher amount. Additionally, since jurors have not sat through a multi-day trial in a courthouse and heard the judge’s strict instructions on awarding damages, in a mock trial, jurors can be more likely to suggest higher numbers, without the pressure of a judge’s orders. When looking at the median of all differential percentages, groups actually awarded 9% less than the average individual damages. This is due to extraordinarily large damages awarded individually, which can skew results.
Different states have different laws regarding jury award amounts, and cultural and regional norms can also play a part in jury awards. Thus, in addition to breaking down results by case type, we also disaggregated cases by their venue region. The sample contained cases from fifteen states, the plurality coming from California and Texas. After sectioning states off by region, there were 17 cases from the Southwest (Texas and Arizona), 10 from the Pacific Coast (California and Washington), 9 from the South (Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky), 8 from the Northeast (Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), and finally 3 from the Midwest (Arkansas, Michigan, and Iowa).
For four out of the five regions, jury deliberation groups awarded, on average, higher than the individual average award. For cases in the Southwest, groups, on average, awarded 47% higher than the individual averages. These cases mainly included Texan cases, a state consistently known for high ‘nuclear verdicts.’ The other three regions had more modest positive differences between group averages and individual averages. In the Northeast, groups awarded 19% more than the average individual amount, and in the Midwest, it was 18%.
Surprisingly, in the sample analyzed, cases in states along the Pacific coast (mainly California), groups only awarded 12% higher than the average individual amount. California, even more than Texas, is known for its ‘nuclear verdict’ amounts. However, two out of the three sexual assault cases were in California, and three out of the five non-work injury cases were in the Pacific region, both case types which skewed towards groups awarding less than individual damages.
Finally, for cases that were tried in the South, groups, on average, awarded 24% lower than individual verdicts. This is another unexpected find, since Florida, like Texas and California, usually has some of the highest jury awards. However, the sample for this analysis is still rather small to draw greater conclusions.
In general, this meta-analysis of individual and group verdicts shows that attorneys need to not only affect individuals, but also equip defense-leaning jurors with evidence and reasons for why a plaintiff’s damage awards are superfluously high. The group’s deliberations are the final jury amount, so it is paramount for defense counsel to make arguments that defense-friendly jurors can bring into the final deliberations. Additionally, this analysis also shows that it is critical for defense counsel to think about the case type and venue region when making arguments or suggesting counter-anchoring numbers.
References: