Selecting the Right Jury

In any trial, the composition of the jury can make or break a case. As attorneys, we know that no matter how strong the legal arguments or how compelling our evidence, the ultimate deciders are the twelve individuals seated in the jury box. The selection of these jurors—voir dire—is an art form. It’s a delicate dance of psychological insight, human intuition, and, most importantly, communication.

The saying, "If you don't have a good jury, you lose your case," might seem overly simplistic, but it rings with truth. Whether in criminal or civil cases, the success of your trial often hinges on how well your story resonates with the jury—and this resonance starts well before opening statements. It begins with picking the right people to hear that story.

The Importance of Communication in Jury Selection

At its core, jury selection is about communication. As lawyers, your task is to effectively gauge potential jurors’ biases, values, and predispositions, not just based on their answers, but from what they leave unsaid. A successful voir dire relies on asking the right questions and, even more critically, understanding the body language, tone, and nuances behind jurors’ responses.

Research supports the critical role communication plays during voir dire. Studies indicate that attorneys’ ability to read non-verbal cues during jury selection is as important as the juror's verbal responses. For instance, examining the effects of body language in jurors and its influence on trial outcomes, a study by Mast and Hall (2004) concludes that non-verbal communication often reveals deeper insights into a juror's biases and thought process than their words alone.

Listening More Than Talking

It’s easy for lawyers to dominate the conversation during voir dire, but the best attorneys listen more than they speak. Potential jurors often reveal important insights about their beliefs and inclinations through their casual remarks, facial expressions, or the pauses before they answer. Non-verbal cues like hesitations, facial tension, or posture shifts can reveal doubts or discomfort with key issues in the case.

Research in psychology has shown that active listening in legal settings fosters trust and reveals more useful information. In particular, a study by Hans and Vidmar (2001) emphasizes the importance of a conversational approach in voir dire, noting that it leads to jurors being more honest about their opinions and biases.

Asking the Right Questions

The way questions are framed is essential. Leading or close-ended questions can stifle communication and fail to uncover juror biases. Open-ended questions, on the other hand, encourage jurors to express their thoughts freely. This not only provides deeper insight but also makes jurors feel heard, setting the stage for a more engaged and communicative trial process.

In their analysis of effective voir dire techniques, Ellsworth and Reifman (2000) highlight that jurors who feel heard during selection are more likely to stay engaged and think critically throughout the trial.

Identifying Implicit Biases

Jurors rarely walk into a courtroom as blank slates. Everyone brings biases—conscious or unconscious—into the room. A key part of jury selection is uncovering these biases before they influence the case. While many people think of bias as overt racism, sexism, or prejudice, implicit biases can be far subtler. They may involve ingrained beliefs about authority, justice, or specific issues pertinent to the case at hand.

Research shows that jurors often act on unconscious biases without realizing it. The study of implicit bias in the courtroom by Kang et al. (2012) suggests that jurors’ unconscious biases can heavily influence their decision-making process, particularly in cases where race or social status play a role. Understanding how to communicate effectively with jurors during voir dire can help mitigate some of these biases.

Building Rapport and Trust with the Jury

A good attorney doesn’t just communicate to a jury—they build rapport with them. Jury selection is the first opportunity for lawyers to establish trust, to start creating a connection that will last throughout the trial. Jurors are more likely to give weight to the arguments of a lawyer they like or trust, so establishing that rapport early is vital.

A study by Bornstein and Greene (2011) on rapport-building in the courtroom found that attorneys who establish early connections with jurors through honest and authentic communication often see better trial outcomes.

The Consequences of Poor Jury Selection

Failing to select the right jury can be devastating. Jurors with preconceived biases against the defendant or a lack of understanding of key legal concepts can misinterpret evidence or testimony. The ripple effect of poor juror selection can extend to:

• Miscommunication during deliberation: Jurors who are not open to your theory of the case may derail the deliberative process, focusing on irrelevant or misleading information.
• Emotional decision-making: Jurors with strong, unspoken biases may make decisions based on emotion rather than logic or legal instructions.
• Undermined legal strategies: The most compelling legal strategy can fall apart if the jury is not receptive to it from the beginning.

Conclusion

Jury selection is not merely a preliminary step in a trial; it is the foundation upon which the rest of the trial is built. Communication is the bedrock of that foundation. From listening to subtle cues in voir dire to building rapport with jurors, a skilled attorney understands that picking the right jury is all about effective, empathetic, and strategic communication. If you don't have a good jury, the battle is often lost before it begins. Thus, perfecting the art of jury selection isn't just beneficial—it's essential.

References:

1. Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision-making: Implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397282
2. Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 788–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.788
3. Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (2001). Judging the Jury. Perseus Books.
4. Kang, J., Bennett, M., Carbado, D., Casey, P., Dasgupta, N., Faigman, D., & Mnookin, J. (2012). Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1124–1186.
5. Mast, M. S., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Who is the boss and who is not? Accuracy of judging status. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(3), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JONB.0000039647.94190.49
   
   

Recent Articles by Our First Court Team:

• Visuals: A Key To Success with a Jury
  
• Managing Your Greatest Asset: Time
• In Light of the Election: How Does Today’s Political Climate Affect the Jury?
• Exploring the Rewards of Mediation
• How Lawyers Can Start Building a Social Media Presence With Confidence
• Understanding Proximate Cause in Legal Defense
• A Trial Lawyer’s Guide to Serving Red Herring