Conspiracies and Cover-Ups: Bigfoot and the Grassy Knoll in the Jury Room

During our focus groups, we often run into those jurors: the ones who are quick to believe a discrepancy between an individual and a large organization means there is a “cover-up” underway.  These are the jurors who will interpret poor documentation as “tampering” rather than simple laziness or putting care before charting.  Even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, some will still hold on to the notion – sometimes going to elaborate lengths to do so – there is a conspiracy afoot.

Although listening to these viewpoints and convoluted theories from the backroom can sometimes be entertaining, the belief that employees in an organization cover up for one another is more widespread than you might think.  In a national survey we conducted earlier this year, we found 57 percent of the 406 respondents believed medical professionals “always” or “frequently” cover up for one another.

Given these findings, chances are at least some in your jury pool will believe there is a larger conspiracy behind poor documentation or he-said-she-said testimony.  This made us curious about the behavior and tendencies of those who buy in to these theories, and a recent research article shed some light.

In the study, researchers examined conspiracy-leaning comments versus conventionalist comments on four separate news websites featuring articles regarding the 9/11 attacks. They found conspiracy theorists were more likely to express mistrust than conventionalists, and they spent more time arguing against official explanations than advocating an explanation of their own.

This means despite evidence you present at trial, avid conspiracy fanatics will likely search for reasons to mistrust your organization and actively refute the facts presented in favor of a cover-up story they are naturally prone to believe.

The research also showed conspiracists’ Internet comments outnumbered conventionalists’ Internet comments by a two-to-one ratio and they were more likely to favor other, unrelated conspiracy theories (for example, 9/11 conspiracy believers might also be advocates of the grassy knoll two-shooter theory) – meaning this is a deeply ingrained mindset.

To identify those strongest believers in conspiracy theories during voir dire, we recommend asking your panel if they typically post comments on Internet news sites, and make sure to search for such comments during social media audits once you get lists of your venire.  If jurors believe one conspiracy, research shows they probably believe others.  This will help you filter out those who are most likely to mistrust your client regardless of the facts or information presented.

However, just in case you end up with a conspiracy theorist on your jury, we also recommend telling a simple, big-picture story from your viewpoint from the beginning.  This will help to “arm your advocates” among the more level-headed jurors who can help to mitigate conspiracy-focused arguments during deliberations, and refocus their fellow jurors on issues that are actually being argued by both sides.

If you want assistance identifying jurors who might jump to an elaborate conspiracy story, as well as what holes they might perceive in one of your cases, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714-754-1010.