Professional Often Trumps Bombastic

Perhaps it’s too many episodes of Law and Order on their DVR, but it seems like some attorneys we’ve observed during the past few years of trial monitoring are taking their cues from the bellowing, bellicose trial lawyers from TV and film. But from what jurors have repeatedly told us, that style is oftentimes is a big turnoff.

Exit interviews we’ve conducted this year following trials in two very different jurisdictions –one of which was in a large, fast-paced jurisdiction, where one might assume jurors expect at least a little flash – revealed that not only do jurors notice screaming, excessive sarcasm, sotto voce asides, petty objections and witness badgering, most of the time they can’t stand it.

Consider the plaintiff’s attorney in one of the cases we monitored. We watched him badger nurse after nurse, prompting all five involved to cry on the stand. He thrived on disrespecting opposing counsel in front of the jury, at one point saying, after she objected to a leading question, “If you hate it so bad, how come you do it so much?”

While we developed an immediate aversion to him on the first day of trial, we’ll let the juror comments after the trial speak for themselves:

“Did you see me rolling my eyes at him? I tried to control myself, but he was just so horrible.”
“This is the epitome of a sleazy, weaselly lawyer.”
“That ‘why is everyone so stupid except for me’ mentality got really old. The little comments he made under his breath were really insulting to his professionalism.”

To a juror, no one could stand this guy.

We had the good fortune of working with lawyers who, in contrast, jurors described as “professional,” “efficient” and “courteous.” Don’t mistake these descriptors as synonyms for boring. On the contrary, jurors appreciate examinations that move along at a good clip, using well-chosen questions in conjunction with well-placed “a-ha” moments to establish or undermine credibility.

Not only is this approach consistently more appealing, jurors understand that bombastic lawyers consume a lot of courtroom time with irrelevant asides and argumentative, often repetitive lines of questioning. When jurors’ time is on the line, and they’re looking at the clock thinking about kids who need to be picked up or work that needs to be caught up on, they want every minute in that courtroom to be used effectively.

And as entertaining as the buildup to a “You can’t handle the truth” climax is in the movies, in real life, jurors are usually looking for something much more straightforward.

-Claire Luna

ARTICLE: As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up

Remember when we said technologically-proficient, web-savvy people tend to make worse jurors?

Well, by way of the New York Times, here's another example:

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, wasting eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.

“We were stunned,” said the defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he was on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.

Last week, a building products company asked an Arkansas court to overturn a $12.6 million judgment against it after a juror used Twitter to send updates during the civil trial.

And on Monday, defense lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, Vincent J. Fumo, demanded that the judge declare a mistrial after a juror posted updates on the case on Twitter and Facebook. The juror even told his readers that a “big announcement” was coming Monday. But the judge decided to let the trial continue, and the jury found Mr. Fumo guilty. His lawyers plan to use the Internet postings as grounds for appeal.

Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based only on the facts that the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web, or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from point A to point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

“It’s really impossible to control it,” said Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants.

...

The technological landscape has changed so much that today’s judge, Mr. Keene said, “has to explain why this is crucial, and not just go through boilerplate instructions.” And, he said, enforcement goes beyond what the judge can do, noting that “it’s up to juror 11 to make sure juror 12 stays in line.”

It does not always work out that way. Seth A. McDowell, a data support specialist who lives in Albuquerque and works for a financial advising firm, said he was serving on a jury last year when another juror admitted doing a Google search on the defendant, even though she acknowledged that she was not supposed to do so. She said she did not find anything, Mr. McDowell said.

Mr. McDowell, 35, said he thought about telling the judge, but decided against it. None of the other jurors did, either. Now, he said, after a bit of soul searching, he feels he might have made the wrong choice. But he remains somewhat torn.

Here is my favorite part:

“I don’t know,” he said. “If everybody did the right thing, the trial, which took two days, would have gone on for another bazillion years.”

Forget about the law, America's Next Top Model is on tonight! And we end on this gem:

Mr. McDowell said he planned to attend law school in the fall.

Off to a great start, pal!



CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE...