Jury Impact in Bloomberg and The New York Times

Jury Impact is once again in the news, with Chris St. Hilaire quoted in Thursday editions of Bloomberg and The New York Times.

Here is an excerpt from The New York Times article Selecting Jury for Bonds Is Hard in Giants Country.

Chris St. Hilaire, president of Jury Impact, a jury consulting company based in Costa Mesa, Calif., said that finding a juror without a predisposition toward Bonds would be a challenge.

“Finding someone who doesn’t have an opinion about Barry Bonds is like finding a cowboy who doesn’t have an opinion about a horse,” he said, adding that the ideal juror is likely to be a casual fan who has heard of Bonds, but does not know much about him or the charges against him.

“You’d think that the perfect juror would be someone who loves baseball, but I think the worst juror for them would be a hard-core fan,” he said of what the defense might be looking for. “You want someone who can be swayed by the evidence, not by their agenda.”

And an excerpt from Bloomberg's piece Bonds Jurors Face Ban on Texting, Tweeting About U.S. Trial Under Proposal:

In what jury consultant Chris St. Hilaire called an unusual addition to such questionnaires, prospective jurors would agree in writing to an order forbidding them from communicating via social media, the Internet, “or any other form of electronic communication for any purpose whatsoever,” according to a filing yesterday in federal court in San Francisco.

“I haven’t seen it used before and it’s a recognition of the new world we live in now,” St. Hilaire, president of Costa Mesa, California-based Jury Impact, said in a telephone interview. Lawyers in the case “are trying to be specific because they know how influential social media is now.”

Keep It Simple

We once monitored a trial where the jurors returned a verdict in 32 minutes. They would have been faster, the foreman explained later, but they wanted to eat lunch before they started deliberating.

Jurors attributed the speedy defense verdict to attorneys who presented a simple, easily comprehensible story that was consistent from beginning to end of the 14-day trial.

Contrast that with the federal criminal trial of former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich, where deliberations alone took 14 days – and ended with a jury deadlocked on 23 of the 24 counts.

Jurors’ comments to the media reveal that the prosecutor’s case collapsed under the weight of its own complexity. “The majority of us felt it was confusing,” juror Eric Sarnello said. “It was all over the place.”

Consider what jurors were given to work with: more than a month’s worth of prosecution witnesses and 100 pages of jury instructions. Even more stunning is what they weren’t given, perhaps the most basic courtroom tool available: a timeline. This oversight forced jurors to spend hours of their deliberations doing what prosecutors should have done for them, piece together the dates and charges from 2001 to Blagojevich’s arrest in 2008.

Our case research has demonstrated that the side who presents the simpler story has the advantage. We suggest making sure before you go to trial that you can tell a compelling story in 30 seconds – basically, an “elevator pitch” for your case. If the other side can’t do this, so much the better.

While the Blagojevich jurors were 11-1 in favor of conviction on the other 23 counts – perhaps compelling evidence that the prosecution’s case was at least in some ways better than the defense’s – the fact is that when the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the need to streamline should be elevated as well. When this case is retried, prosecutors would be well-advised to remember that focus and restraint are paramount to helping jurors understand what a case is all about.

They would also be prudent to consider that the defense did exactly what it was supposed to do: create doubt through a straightfoward contention that the government had failed to prove its case, all without calling a single witness. “Zip,” is how Blagojevich’s lawyer described their defense.

It’s hard to make it much simpler than that.

ARTICLE: Jury seated for Marianna home-invasion, murder trial

From David Angier at the Panama City News Herald, we learn of a juror dismissed because she might have, possibly, just maybe, had a wee bit of trouble remaining unbiased:

A prospective juror Monday in Howard Sullivan’s murder trial had a startling revelation about a potential witness in that case.

Prosecutor Greg Wilson was asking if anyone on the panel knew Lionel Crawford when a woman raised her hand. He’d gone through a list of potential witnesses and wanted to know if familiarity with a witness would bias a juror for or against their testimony.

"How do you know Mr. Crawford?" Wilson asked.

"He shot me in 2004," the woman replied.

"He shot you?" Wilson asked. After a long pause, he said, "Would it be safe to say you’d have a problem judging his credibility in this case?"

Congratulations, Mr. Wilson, you've just been nominated for Understatment of the Year!

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

ARTICLE: 'I Pity the Fool': Mr. T on Jury Duty

Makes me wish I lived in Chicago:

Called for jury duty at Cook County Criminal Court, Mr. T didn't disappoint Monday.

The "Rocky III" and "A-Team" star told stories during down time, autographed books and posed for pictures with other potential jurors, county employees -- and the family of the defendant in the case he could have ended up hearing.

"I enjoy doing my civic duty along with my friends I've met," said the Chicago-born actor, 56, motioning to the 20-plus potential jurors who'd been in the room with him for about five hours. "I enjoyed the people that were around me.

"It's not about 'The A-Team;' it's the J-Team -- the jury team."

Ultimately Judge Charles P. Burns dismissed Mr. T and others at 4:32 p.m. when a jury was seated in the drug case.

...

"You've got to testify! Tell somebody about it. God is good!" he told an admirer as he tried to leave the building. "I pity the fool that don't get it."

The first at the county building to recognize him as a celebrity was the daughter of the defendant in the case.

...

She said she didn't know why Mr.T didn't land on the jury.

"My mom would have picked him," she said.

...

There was no bad attitude on the part of the actor regarding jury duty.

"If you're innocent, I'm your best man," he said. "But if you're guilty, I pity that fool."

If the defendant’s family had not recognized Mr. T from the outset, we would have added the following section to our standard juror questionnaire to suss him out:

1. How do you feel about fools? (circle one)
a. I think they're great
b. I have no opinion either way
c. I pity them

2. What is the best way to enter a room? (circle one)
a. Through a door
b. Through a window
c. Through a concrete wall, in a van, covered in gold chains

3. If someone said, "You don't look so bad to me" what would you most likely say in return? (circle one)
a. "You are correct, sir."
b. "I assure you, I have the potential to be quite bad."
c. "What did you say to me paper champion?"

4. If Rocky Balboa was to fight Clubber Lang, what would be your prediction for the fight? (circle one)
a. Wait, who is fighting who?
b. A draw
c. PAAAAAAAIN



CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Article: Jurors Kicked Off Case For Romance

Just in time for Valentine's Day TheDenverChannel.com(via Fark.com) we are treated to a wonderful story of two jurors falling in love while serving on a jury...for a child-abuse trial.

According to the story, the man and woman were dismissed from the 16-member jury on Tuesday, after people reported seeing them walking arm-in-arm together and giggling with each other.

The former jury showed up Wednesday and sat in the spectator section of the courtroom but he refused to answer questions when approached in the hallway by a reporter.

Here are some details of the child-abuse trial that inspired such romance:

Twenty-nine-year-old Alex 

Midyette is accused in the 2006 death of 11-week-old Jason Midyette. Prosecutors say Jason had 37 broken bones.

Midyette's attorneys say Jason had a metabolic disease and wasn't abused. A doctor testified that Jason had bone abnormalities that were misidentified as fractures.

A doctor testifying for prosecutors said Jason's skull was fractured before he died.

Jason's mother, Molly Midyette, was convicted of child abuse for failing to get medical attention for her son. She is serving a 16-year sentence.

Yikes.

Meat + Booze + Cash = Marry a 14-Year-Old!

Straight from the oh-man-why-did-it-have-to-be-in-California file, CNN treats us to a story of a father, Jesus Martinez, who sold his underaged daughter's hand in marriage to an 18-year-old boy in exchange for cash, tasty beverages and meat. (So that's what 14-year-olds are going for these days?)

That's not even the worst part. The worst part is the future son-in-law, who had already absconded with the minor Martinez, couldn't even come up with that pitiful dowry! An irate Mr. Martinez called the cops, and hilarity ensued.

Marcelino de Jesus Martinez, 36, of Greenfield, California, was arrested Monday and booked into the Monterey County Jail, Greenfield police said in a statement.

Martinez had arranged through a third party to have his daughter marry the older teenager, identified by authorities as Margarito de Jesus Galindo, of Gonzales, California. In exchange, Galindo was to pay Martinez $16,000 and provide him with 160 cases of beer, 100 cases of soda, 50 cases of Gatorade, two cases of wine, and six cases of meat, Greenfield Police Chief Joe Grebmeier told CNN.

The official felony charge is "receiving money for causing a person to cohabitate." I presume California law doesn't have a provision for receiving carne asada.


But before your fervent head-scratching breaks the skin, we're told this is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, 100% NORMAL in Mr. Martinez' hometown of Oaxaca, Mexico.

In Oaxacan culture, the food and beverages are provided by a prospective bridegroom for the wedding...

Who am I to argue with culture? And then there's this little gem:

Authorities believe the young girl went with Galindo willingly, and no coercion was involved, he said. However, the girl is four years younger than California's age of consent, although the law does allow 16-year-olds to marry with parental consent.

Wait, what? Is it just me, or is California slowly starting to become Florida?

And just in case people weren't satisfactorily nauseated, the article slips in this little nugget:

He said his department has long heard rumors of children as young as 12 being sold or offered for sale. The Greenfield police statement said arranged marriages between young girls and older men "have become a local problem."

Yeah, I'd say when 12-year-olds are getting hitched to adult males, "local problem" is a fair assessment.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

When They Make This Into a Movie, I REALLY Hope They Do a Better Casting Job

According to the Associated Press, Doreen Giuliano, whose son was convicted of murder in 2003, decided to go undercover in search of information that could possibly result in a repeal of his conviction.

And by undercover, I mean:

...blonde dye job, fake tan, sexy wardrobe, phony name -- and began spying on jurors. She befriended one juror to root out any possible misdeeds at the trial, and for nearly eight months, they drank at bars, smoked marijuana and shared meals in her tiny Brooklyn hideaway.

Apparently it worked, because the juror she zeroed in on as a target, Jason Allo, started singing like a canary.

Among other things, the motion accuses the 33-year-old Allo of concealing that he had personal knowledge that Giuliano's son, John Giuca, ran with a rough crowd, and of defying orders to avoid news coverage once the highly publicized proceedings started. It argues that Allo "admitted the outside information he obtained about the case prejudiced him against Mr. Giuca."

In addition to mentioning the rarity of murder convictions being overturned, the article also provides some information about Mrs. Giuliano's son's conviction:

A jury deliberated only two hours before convicting Giuca of second-degree murder in 2005. He and the gunman were sentenced to 25 years to life in prison by a judge who told them that because the killing was callous, "my sentence will be callous."[emphasis added]

Yeah, I somehow don't think that one's going to be overturned, regardless of what Mr. Allo offered up.

The thing that bothers me about this story is the claim by both Mr. Allo and Mrs. Giuliano that there was no physical contact. I'm just wondering how someone can be "seductive" if they never actually seduce anyone. And, well, I submit a photo for further discussion:



You're telling me vegan Vin Diesel started yapping to this supposedly "seductive" older woman because they were BFF and nothing more? Just pals who share joints, tabs at bars, and the cozy confines of small Brooklyn apartments? Really?

Definitely a Thing That Makes You Go Hmmm...

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Freakonomics Blog: Juror Unanimity Isn't Necessarily a Great Thing

Here is a compelling take on the unanimity requirement of our legal system:

Juror Unanimity Isn’t Necessarily a Great Thing: A Guest Post
By Ethan Leib

Thanks for putting up with my quirky intellectual agenda of friendship and the law in the last two posts. For my final post, I thought I would highlight a more traditional area of my legal research: the jury.

There is something quirky at play here too: the U.S. is one of the few democracies around the world to have a unanimity rule for juror decision-making. The Times’s Adam Liptak has been doing a series on American Exceptionalism — “commonplace aspects of the American justice system that are virtually unique in the world” — but he has yet to focus on the puzzling persistence of unanimity as our jury decision rule.

Here are a few facts that make unanimity a non-obvious choice for juror decision-making.

1) We don’t require unanimity for any other important decision in our pluralistic polity. Our Supreme Court doesn’t decide by unanimity and neither do our legislators.

2) No other modern country (save Canada and a few jurisdictions in Australia) requires it.

3) We require unanimity to acquit as well as convict, so the idea that it contributes to protecting defendants is not fully accurate.
4) The symmetrical unanimity requirement contributes to inefficiency by giving us hung verdicts more than necessary.

5) Our juries have gotten more diverse as we’ve made it harder to get out of service and as we’ve grown more inclusive in our political system. With that diversity, majoritarianism seems more appropriate.

6) Empirical evidence tends to support the view that verdicts don’t change all that much when you change the decision rule. So the idea that unanimity contributes to certainty is probably overblown.

7) There is also empirical evidence suggesting that people assigned a unanimous decision rule will often agree to decide by supermajority (albeit unanimously) — meaning that in such cases, there is no difference between the two rules, except that some jurors agree to pretend that they agree with a verdict from which, in fact, they may strongly dissent.

8) We all know that many people are willing to falsify their preferences by changing their votes to agree with the majority; the incentives for doing so are especially high when one is a holdout juror being berated by other jurors because everyone wants to get home faster.

9) We don’t have such stringent unanimity rules in the context of the civil jury or courts martial, yet both those systems are respected and deemed legitimate by the public. Moreover, the few states that have experimented with relaxed jury-decision rules for the criminal jury — Oregon and Louisiana — do not suffer especial deficits in legitimacy.

10) Unanimity is often an illusion. Suppose a jury hangs, leading to a retrial. The second jury empanelled to try the defendant then convicts unanimously. Despite this second “unanimous” verdict, the truth is that, of a total of 24 jurors who heard the evidence, fewer than 24 were persuaded to convict. Indeed, it’s possible in theory that only thirteen — a bare majority — were persuaded, if in the first trial the holdout favored conviction, not acquittal.

These facts should be enough to get us to question our fealty to unanimity. At the very least, I think it is high time we stopped requiring unanimity for acquittals.

Judge Swears In All-White Jury

An all-white jury will judge O.J. Simpson and a co-defendant on kidnapping and robbery charges after defense lawyers lost a contentious courtroom battle to include two African-American women on the panel.

District Attorney David Roger gave the judge what he called "race neutral" reasons for removing the two with his peremptory challenges, and defended the final makeup of the jury chosen late Thursday night, saying that two of six alternate jurors are black.

Both of the women who were removed had strong religious views, and the prosecutor said he thought one of them would be inclined to "forgive" Simpson while the other said she was hesitant to send anyone to prison.

Simpson's 1995 acquittal on murder charges came from a predominantly black jury.
Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass said she saw no evidence of a systematic exclusion of African-Americans. The current panel also is made up of nine women and three men.
Defense attorneys for Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart, who are both black, moved to dismiss the entire jury panel and start again but the judge rejected the motion.

Lawyers and the judge worked into the night to select the final group, using peremptory challenges, which are reserved for removing prospective jurors without stating a cause.

The final pool of prospects included a number of people who disagreed with Simpson's acquittal in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. But they said they could put that aside and weigh the Las Vegas case on its own merits.

Simpson, 61, is accused with Stewart, 54, of kidnapping, armed robbery and other crimes for allegedly stealing items from two sports memorabilia dealers in a hotel room confrontation last year. They have pleaded not guilty. Each could face life in prison with the possibility of parole if convicted of kidnapping, and mandatory prison time if convicted of armed robbery.

Opening statements were scheduled for Monday, and the trial is expected to last five weeks.
As they left the courthouse in darkness, Simpson attorney Yale Galanter said he was confident of his case.

"I don't think my client did anything wrong, I don't think he broke any laws. I'm glad that we're finally at the point where we can get these issues resolved," he said.

As Simpson drove away, he paused to sign a T-shirt for some fans. It was emblazoned with the words, "Pray for O.J."

Earlier, the judge issued an order refusing to release questionnaires filled out by the jurors who make up the panel. She said she had promised the panel she would keep their answers secret.

Colby Williams, a lawyer representing The Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal who sought disclosure of the questionnaires, said he has filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court on grounds that the public and the media have a First Amendment right of access to information about jurors in a criminal case.

Associated Press

Chris St. Hilaire on KNX 1070

Chris St. Hilaire, President and CEO of Jury Impact, was interviewed today on KNX 1070 AM regarding the OJ Simpson trial. Be sure to tune in!



If you're not in Southern California, you can listen online at http://www.blogger.com/www.knx1070.com/

OJ Part Deux

Oh boy. Here we go again.

According to CNN, OJ Simpson arrived in a Las Vegas courtroom today for the start of his robbery and kidnapping trial.

Ugh, I'm not sure if I can handle another OJ trial. The article states:

The court has eliminated 252 of 500 potential jurors based on their answers to a questionnaire. Attorneys for the prosecution and defense will start selecting a jury Monday, trying to find 12 jurors and four alternates from the remaining pool of potential jurors.

They eliminated half the jury pool right off the bat? Man, I'm dying to get my hands on that questionaire.

On the radio I heard the defense attorneys confidently proclaim that OJ could get a fair trial. That seems rather optimistic, but nothing compared to this gem from a "legal analyst":

Attorneys expect many jurors to have heard about the case but are looking for people who will make decisions based on the evidence presented at trial, said legal analyst Jim Moret.

"It's not whether or not you've heard a lot about the case," he said. "It's whether you can set that aside and listen to the evidence that's presented in court and determine the case based solely on that."

Right. Because jurors commonly disregard preconcieved notions and biases and make decisions strictly according to the facts. Good luck with that.



Click here to read the entire story...

Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict man

Regardless of what the forewoman says, sometimes, despite the best jury instructions and intentions, jurors just want to go home.

RIVERHEAD, New York (AP) -- A juror who helped convict a black man of fatally shooting a white teenager said he felt pressured by other jurors and the judge to change his vote to guilty during a marathon deliberating session.

The jury convicted John White of second-degree manslaughter Saturday in the August 2006 shooting of 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro Jr.

White, 54, remains free on bail and plans to appeal. He faces a prison term of five to 15 years.

The case drew national attention after defense attorneys argued that he feared a "lynch mob" had come to attack his family when a group of angry white teenagers gathered outside his home. The teens wanted to confront White's son.

Juror Francois Larche, who is white, said he and another juror changed their votes after enduring "a lot of psychological tactics" from fellow jurors during an unusual weekend session ordered by the judge over jurors' protests.

"It was a huge burden to bear," Larche, 46, told the New York Post in Monday's editions. He added, "I took a lot of heat."

Jury forewoman Maureen Steigerwald denied that the judge, a 12-hour deliberating session on Saturday -- the fourth day of deliberations -- or the holidays played a role in the jury's decision.

"The jury did a very careful, conscientious deliberate job," she told Newsday in Monday's editions.

Judge Barbara Kahn said the jury would have to return on Sunday if they didn't reach a decision. Larche told the Post the judge told them a mistrial would burden the families and the next jury.

"I thought about my family and the families of the other jurors," Larche said. "It was not worth it in the end."

Read the entire article...