To read Part 1, Click HERE.
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 meta-research by looking at the average of all individual verdict amount responses and comparing them to the average group verdict amount response in each of our mock trials we conducted nationwide over approximately the last year and a half. After analyzing all of the percent differences between groups, the group damage verdicts were, on average, 19% higher than the average of what the individual jurors said they would award prior to the group deliberations in those same mock trials. 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.
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, defense counsel should start early in voir dire explaining how and why under the law each juror need to commit to awarding fair and reasonable damages and be ready to stand up for the amounts they believe are fair right when it comes to the jury deliberation. Having a well-reasoned defense anchor number, can also give the jury a specific reason to avoid "drifting higher" in the group deliberation context.
References: