Federal Courts Address Wave of Online Jurors

This past week, the new model jury instructions about online research and social media communication by jurors were released. You can read the new instructions here. While they are quite explicit and forceful, they are weak on an important element. Research into the effectiveness of limiting jury instructions has shown that such instructions can only work if jurors are given a rational (but not condescending) explanation for why the instructions are in place. This is why instructions to disregard evidence of a lie detector test (the science is just not very reliable yet) tend to be heeded, while instructions to disregard evidence from an inappropriate search (Well, you see, we have this thing called the 4th Amendment...) tend not to be.

Other courts have fashioned instructions regarding online activity by jurors well before the Federal Judiciary got in the game and some of these earlier instructions are frankly just better, particularly with respect to explaining why information obtained from outside sources is inappropriate to use. I particularly like the combination of patient explanation and forceful admonition embedded in the New Jersey model instructions. You can find these here.

While the problem of online activity has gotten more serious and more prevalent in the past few years, mostly due to the proliferation of high speed internet access and smart phone usage in the population, the issues remain very much as they were when this problem first reared its ugly digital head. I wrote a somewhat speculative post about this topic back in 2009 and the themes I covered still resonate today.

Take a look.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Remedy for the Googling juror? Just ask!


Jurors swarm the net

Recent entry for the smallest surprise of the year award: jurors are online.

Everyone is online. So, of course, people summoned for jury duty are, too. Jury duty can be very tedious. There is a lot of sitting around waiting for things to happen. The local sports page can keep you occupied for only so long. So, whip out your iPhone or Blackberry and see what's what. Google the defendant. Google the lawyer. Google the judge! Post a tweet (Most juror posts run along the lines of "I'm stuck on jury duty and boy am I bored.").

The problem has become so prevalent that there was a front page story about it in today's New York Times. So, what are we going to do about it?

Anyone who understands psychology at all knows that the solution is NOT to take away juror's toys and slap their hands with rulers if they disobey. We know from decades of research about judicial instructions (particularly the limiting kind) that judicial admonitions without proper reasoning tends to incite "reactance" on the part of jurors. That is, when jurors' freedom to act is taken away by the court, those jurors tend to rebel and engage in the prohibited behavior more than had they not been warned in the first place. So, the key is to accompany whatever solution is chosen with careful, logical and respectful explanations to the jurors.

With these considerations in mind, there seem to be fairly straightforward solutions to the two main types of juror internet activity that concern lawyers and judges.

Juror Tweeting and Blogging

There is nothing wrong with a juror wanting to chronicle her experience on jury duty. The problem is when she posts her experiences while the trial is ongoing. Outgoing messages don't pose too great a risk of contaminating the trial, unless one is concerned that the desire to post something sensational will cause the juror to alter her behavior in the jury room. The bigger problem is the possibility that such posts will generate online responses, providing the juror with extra-legal contact with facts and opinions not in evidence. Another emerging problem is the ability of an attorney to read the posts of jurors in her own cases during the trial.

General pre-trial jury instructions and those ever-entertaining "What is a juror?" videos should be edited to make it clear to those called for jury duty that they are not permitted to post information about their experiences online until after their service has ended. These instructions should make it clear that this prohibition is consistent with the one against discussing a case with others. My educated guess is that most juror bloggers do not realize that their behavior is inappropriate. Very few people need to blog so badly that they will do so after being told by a bailiff not to. These instructions should also make it clear that jurors are, of course, permitted to write whatever they choose about their experiences after their jury service is over.

Online research by serving jurors

Six hundred years ago this would not have been a problem (not just because there were no computers). During the early period of the Anglo-American jury system, jurors were selected from the locality of an alleged crime or dispute precisely so that they could come to court with local knowledge about the events in dispute. If the jurors did not feel that they understood the case well enough, they were expected to investigate it on their own! They were to ask other villagers about what they saw or heard. There were rarely witnesses at trial, so the jurors had to be "self-informing."

Well, we have now almost come full circle. We live in a world full of people skeptical of the motives of everyone involved in the law. We don't trust the parties. We don't trust the lawyers. We don't even trust the judges to be impartial anymore. Given the instant availability of information online, it is no wonder that jurors are tempted to "fact check" their cases on Google. In a recent Florida case that resulted in a mistrial, the judge discovered that a juror had conducted unauthorized online research. He then voir dired the rest of the jurors to find out who had been exposed to what this juror had found out. To the judge's amazement and horror, he discovered that eight other jurors had also conducted research online. He had no choice but to declare a mistrial.

What should we do? Well, first of all, every single judge should pre-instruct every single jury not to conduct online research. Such an instruction must be accompanied by a well-crafted explanation of why such a rule is necessary. Second, lawyers should do their homework. If the attorneys in a case cross all their t's and dot all their i's, they can substantially reduce the temptation for jurors to look elsewhere for answers. Do some pre-trial research. Find out what is likely to matter to jurors. Find out what is likely to confuse them. Give them the answers they need.

This brings me to a procedural "innovation" that I think can mitigate the temptation for jurors to conduct unauthorized online research. More and more jurisdictions allow jurors to ask questions of witnesses during trial. Judges should not grudgingly accept this intrusion into their total control of the courtroom. Rather, judges should welcome this as an opportunity to satisfy the curiosities of jurors within the confines of the courtroom. Better to let the parties address jurors' questions during the trial than risk those jurors searching for answers elsewhere.

So, at the same time that the judge tells the jurors not to consult any outside sources regarding the trial, she should encourage them to bring any outstanding questions to her attention. The message should be "We are here to help you make the best-informed decision possible. We'll get you the answers you need."

I think that jurors who hear that message will be more likely to stay off google during trial. Afterwards.... well, that's another topic for another day.

Will Wonders Never Cease?

Jury Consulting in Criminal Cases

Traditionally, only a select few criminal defendants have employed jury consultants. Those who have typically fall into three distinct categories.

1) Really rich people and celebrities (who are usually really rich). These folks can afford to hire the most expensive lawyers and also pay for a variety of trial support services. If ever you needed proof that jury consulting is valuable, pay close attention to the fact that every criminal defendant who can pay for it does pay for it.

2) Accused murderers facing the death penalty. Because judges receognize that the stakes are very high in capital cases, as well as the particular stress on jury selection created by the death qualification process, public funds are most likely to be awarded for jury consulting services in these cases. The presumption is that the jury consultant will be used exclusively for jury selection (now that change of venue motions have become essentially hopeless).

3) White collar criminal defendants. OK. This is really a subset of the really rich people, but the issues are different enough to warrant its own category. Unlike the washed-up actor who strangles his girlfriend, the corporate accountant accused of cooking the books is facing a trial that feels somewhat more like a civil trial. The case revolves around money and common business practices. The victims are often also rich and generally no violence was involved. Defendants in these cases tend to employ jury consultants for a variety of services, from thematic development to witness prep to pretrial jury research to jury selection.

What about the Little Guy?

But what about the people who could use our help the most? What about the indigent criminal defendant with an overworked, underpaid and inexperienced and/or jaded public defender? Do these folks use jury consulting services? Well, the answer used to be a resounding "no" but the landscape is changing.

Despite the wording of the Massachusetts statute regarding the allocation of funds for trial support services, which authorizes funding whenever a similarly situated non-indigent defendant would be willing to pay for the service, the Massachusetts courts have been loathe to even consider paying for jury consulting services. Part of this reluctance stems from the way in which such funds are allocated in Massachusetts. Most public defenders are actually "bar advocates," private attorneys who sign up to get assigned cases involving indigent criminal defendants. The state agency that oversees this process, the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) has a budget, but no authority to spend any of it on trial services. Each attorney must petition the court for the authorization to hire a psychologist, investigator or expert witness. Given the very modest budget for CPCS, combined with the fact that no judge knows how other judges are spending the money, the judiciary as a whole tends to be very stingy for all but obviously necessary expenses.

As I reported in this blog a few years ago, the attorneys for Neil Entwistle, whose case received non-stop pretrial publicity for months leading up to trial, petitioned the court for $1,000 for help from a jury consultant in crafting voir dire questions. The judge denied the request without argument or comment. The default position is clearly, "No dice!"

The good news is that the dam is starting to crack. Over the past few years, attorneys have successfully petitioned the court for small sums of money to retain my services. I lowered my hourly rate very dramatically in order to increase the likelihood that such petitions might have a chance. Recently, I accepted a position with TrialGraphix, a large, national litigation consulting firm. I could no longer work the CPCS cases for peanuts. While management at TrialGraphix was willing to let me work these criminal cases at a substantial discount, a court was going to have to authorize real money to pay for my services.

Recently, I was approached by an attorney concerning a criminal matter for an indigent defendant. I explained that he would have to submit his motion with my new hourly rate. In addition, the case is very complicated and the attorney needed help with several jury-related matters. So, he was going to have to ask for a pretty hefty sum -- several times more than the court had ever awarded me before. We held our breath -- and the judge said "OK."

Perhaps the judiciary is finally becoming enlightened with respect to the difficulties confronted by those facing jury trials for serious criminal charges. Maybe the judge wanted to cover himself against a possible appeal. Maybe I have now developed enough of a track record that judges take these motions seriously. Whatever the reason, I can now say to anyone representing an indigent criminal defendant in Massachusetts, "Don't assume that you can't hire a jury consultant to help you." The door has been opened; it's time to walk through it.

What the Future May Hold

I am less familiar with how funds are allocated for jury consulting services in other states. I know that most states have real public defender offices, with discretionary (although small) budgets. In such a system, court approval is not required to pay for support services. Massachusetts is moving in this direction, which might provide further momentum for these efforts.

I have worked for the Federal Public Defenders Office in Boston and they only require internal authorization to pay for my services. I bill them just like a regular law firm. I can only hope that the CPCS system will evolve into something closer to this model.

A criminal defense attorney whose motion for funds for jury consulting services has been denied need not despair. I have written in this blog many times about the Pro Bono Initiative of the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC). I remain the Chair of our Pro Bono Committee and we are more committed than ever to making jury consulting services available to those representing clients of limited means.

Earlier this month, I connected a non-profit legal aid organization in Chicago with a ASTC member consultant to help with thematic development and jury selection. When it was determined that they needed help with graphics and video editing, we found another ASTC member to help with that. So, if you need help, please don't hesitate to contact me or visit the Pro Bono Committee's homepage.

Exciting News!

Dear Followers of the The Jury Box,

It is with great excitement and anticipation that I write today to tell you all that I have recently accepted a position with TrialGraphix, the nation's premier full-service litigation consulting firm. The company website can be found at trialgraphix.com.

TrialGraphix, as its name would imply, is known for unparalleled design and execution of courtroom graphics and animation. Many of you know my views on the importance of visual learning among jurors, so I am thrilled to be associated with a firm at the cutting edge of that field. Now, I can not only make recommendations to my clients about demonstratives, but I can offer those clients the talent and resources at TrialGraphix to make those demonstratives come to life.

TrialGraphix is also at the forefront of trial technology, providing the expertise and technical solutions for any litigator's courtroom needs.

Of particular interest to me -- and you, too, I hope -- is TrialGraphix's long track record as one of the country's most respected jury consulting firms. One reason I agreed to join TrialGraphix is the tremendous respect I have for the jury consultants who are already there. I can't wait to work with them and to introduce them all to you.

For those of you who have worked with me in the past, rest assured that I remain committed to serving the needs of my existing clients. I will be running the jury consulting practice in the New York City office, which is a big change for me, but I will be in Boston often. This position provides me with the best of both worlds: the opportunity to continue to serve my New England clients and the potential to help future clients all over the country.

Since I have subscribers to the Jury Box from all over the country (and even other parts of the world), I want you to know that there is probably a TrialGraphix office near you. The company has offices is San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Minneapolis, Miami, Washington and New York. By all means, feel free to contact me directly with any jury issues that come up, but know that we have experience working in every state.

I plan to continue to publish the Jury Box Blog in much the way I have always done so. I apologize for the recent dearth of posts, but I have been quite busy preparing for my new job. I expect that the logo will change to reflect my association with TrialGraphix, but otherwise it will remain pretty much as is. I hope to get some of my new colleagues to contribute guest posts for time to time, especially in the courtroom graphics and trial technology fields.

Thank you all for your continued support of the Jury Box Blog and, by all means, look me up the next time you are in The Big Apple!

-Edward

An Oldie but a Goodie: Tips for Voir Dire

In reviewing the traffic on my website recently, I was struck by how much more often one particular article was accessed than any other. I used to write a column on trial strategy for Lawyers USA (formerly Lawyers Weekly USA), and this particular article on voir dire strategy from 2006 seems to be very popular, even today. So, in the spirit of giving the public what it wants, here is that article in its entirety.

Enjoy!

Indirect Questions Reap Most Information in 

Oral Voir Dire 

By Edward P. Schwartz 

October 9, 2006 

In my last column, I discussed many of the advantages of using a 

supplemental juror questionnaire as part of jury selection – the primary 

advantage being that jurors tend to be more truthful in their responses on a 

written form than they are when questioned orally in open court.  

But the written form – at least in courts that allow traditional voir dire – should 

only be seen as a supplement to oral questioning conducted in both a group and 

an individualized setting.  

Group voir dire 

By necessity, group voir dire questions are typically framed as “yes or no” 

inquiries. Jurors are asked to raise their hands if they answer any question in the 

affirmative. Each party notes who raised a hand in response to each question 

and then follows up with questions either in open court, at sidebar or in the 

judge’s chambers, depending on the court’s prevailing practices. 

My first word of advice is not to expect to learn very much from group voir 

dire. The need to ask “yes or no” questions, coupled with the public setting, 

conspire to limit how much information you can get from potential jurors. The 

studies cited in my last column all reveal that jurors lie during group voir dire – a 

lot. Most of these lies stem from an unwillingness to volunteer information about 

private and/or sensitive subjects. 

My second bit of advice is to treat group voir dire as an entrée into 

individualized voir dire. The more often a juror raises her hand, the more 

individual questions she will have to answer. Since these follow-up questions are 

where the action is, craft your group voir dire questions in a way that prompts as 

many people to respond as possible. Instead of asking whether “you or a loved- 

one has ever been a party in a law suit,” ask whether “you know anyone who has 

participated in a lawsuit.” Many panel members will construe a question as 

narrowly as possible in order to avoid raising their hand and setting themselves 

up for additional questions.   

Ask each juror whether he or she has ever been in a courthouse before. 

Almost everyone has been at some point or another. Whether it concerns traffic 

court, small claims court or family court, you should try to learn something about 

each juror’s experience with the legal system.  

Try to keep your list of group voir dire questions short. The jurors don’t want 

to raise their hands anyway. The longer the process lasts, the less inclined 

anyone will be to volunteer information.  

I recently consulted on a trial for which the group voir dire lasted 1½ hours. 

For the last 10 minutes, not a single juror raised his or her hand. Fortunately, the 

questions from my team had been asked at the beginning. 

Some jurors are forthcoming, while others won’t raise their hands unless they 

absolutely have to. These jurors can slip through voir dire because questions are 

almost always phrased so that it is the jurors who raise their hands who are 

asked additional questions. To avoid this, I recommend that you phrase some of 

your questions so that it is the jurors who don’t raise their hands who are subject 

to individualized voir dire. So instead of asking, “Who has a relative who works in 

the health field?,” ask “Who doesn’t have a relative who works in the health 

field?” Even if the voir dire will be conducted entirely by the judge, try requesting 

that the judge mix it up in this way. 

Finally, it is a complete waste of time to ask jurors directly whether there is 

anything that would prevent them from being impartial in the case. Most people 

who answer affirmatively are just trying to get out of jury duty. The people whose 

biases are really a source of concern are rarely self-aware enough to recognize 

the problem. Finally, such questions are usually so poorly worded, and cluttered 

with negatives and dependant clauses, that jurors can’t decipher them in time to 

volunteer a response. 

Individual voir dire 

A good question in a written juror questionnaire typically does not make a 

good voir dire question. The main reason is that while people hate to write, they 

love to talk. An open-ended question on a written questionnaire is an invitation to 

leave a blank space. As I discuss in my last column, multiple-choice and sliding- 

scale questions are preferable on a written form.  

But in oral voir dire, open-ended questions provide an opportunity for jurors to 

tell you who they really are. The goal is to get potential jurors to want to tell you 

about themselves in their own words. 

Don’t ask leading or challenging questions. If you try to put words in jurors’ 

mouths, they will either repeat them back to you or clam up, depending on 

whether they like what you are saying on their behalf. So, if you ask a juror what 

she thinks about the “torts crisis” in America, she will either tell you that she 

thinks it is a “crisis” or that she doesn’t have much of an opinion about it. Such a 

question will not get her to tell you about her own experience (or those of her 

friends and family) with the civil justice system, which is what you really want to 

learn about.  

Instead, ask the juror about the most interesting court case she has ever 

heard about. What case she chooses, along with her take on the outcome, will be 

much more informative than some canned response about “fairness” or “justice.” 

Prospective jurors will instinctively try to figure out why a lawyer is asking a 

particular question. The more sensitive the topic – and the more the question 

reflects the fundamental controversy of the case – the more likely a juror is to try 

to “game” the process. One way to avoid this is to ask jurors to tell stories about 

themselves, as I mention above. Another is to ask questions about topics that 

proxy well for what you are really interested in.  

For example, I recently worked on a case involving the purchase of a firearm 

by someone who was mentally ill. We wanted to learn whether jurors were 

sensitive to the plight of people facing mental challenges and whether they 

believed society is responsible for keeping such people safe.  

To get at these attitudes, we asked a very open-ended question about each 

juror’s recollection of the Columbine tragedy. If a juror did not offer an opinion on 

her own about who was responsible, we followed up with a question about the 

juror’s initial thoughts about who was to blame.  

Some jurors blamed only the shooters. Others expressed frustration with the 

parents. A few articulated the position that everyone (parents, school, 

government, media, etc.) has a responsibility to look out for the well-being of our 

children. The jurors were generally willing to talk about Columbine because it did 

not have a direct bearing on our case. 

Another ripe area to explore is people’s relations with those close to them. 

People love to talk about their children. Rather than ask prospective jurors about 

religious preferences, ask where their kids go to school. To get a sense of how a 

juror feels about people in different professions, ask what their children want to 

be when they grow up. If one answers, “Joey, my 6-year-old, wants to be a 

policeman,” you can follow up with, “How do you and your wife feel about that?” 

A person whose son is on the debate team or who plays in the orchestra is likely 

to have different attitudes than one whose son plays on the football team and has 

joined ROTC. A person who is self-conscious about their own life can still be 

expansive about her children; use this to your advantage. 

There is another advantage to “asking around the topic.” If the other side has 

not thought through the voir dire process as thoroughly, the jurors’ responses will 

be more useful to you than they will be to your opponents. 

Be Prepared for any jury 

I have devoted the last two columns to jury selection strategies. I don’t want 

you to get the idea, however, that choosing a jury is the only, or even the most 

important, opportunity for you to improve your chances of winning at trial. As I 

always tell my clients, in terms of impact on verdict choice, who the jurors are is 

almost always swamped by what the jurors see. By all means, do all you can to 

identify and strike jurors who really will be unfair to your client; but, make sure to 

concentrate  your energy and resources on presenting your case in its most 

favorable light. 

The Fifth Amendment vs. The Third Degree

Edward Fleury declines to testify in his own defense

Massachussens, parents and gun advocates have all been following closely the trial of Edward Fleury, a retired police chief, who is on trial for involuntary manslaughter in conjunction with a gun show he organized and promoted. At the show, Christopher Bezilj, age 8, accidently shot himself to death while firing an Uzi machine gun. My earlier posts on this trial can be found here and here.

The prosecution recently rested its case, confronting Rosemary Scapicchio, Flery's defense lawyer, with some difficult strategic decisions. One that faces almost every criminal defense team is whether the defendant should testify in his own defense. In the end, Ms. Scapicchio opted not to put her client on the stand.

When should a defendant testify?

There are a few main factors that a defense attorney must consider when deciding whether to put her client on the stand.

The first question is whether the case is predominantly about "who did what to whom when" (factual dispute) or whether the defendant's conduct was, in fact, criminal (interpretive dispute).  When the dispute is factual, the defendant might very well be in a position to shed light on important questions. It might be very important to the defense for the jury to hear "his side" of the story.

This implicates the next question. Will the probative value of the defendant's testimony outweigh the costs associated with his testimony? Is there another defense witness available to testify to the defense version of events? Is the defendant belligerent? Does he seem shifty or untrustworthy? Does he look threatening? Can he be trusted not to start inventing things on the stand? All of these factors must be taken into account as part of the cost-benefit analysis associated with deciding to have the defendant testify.

The Fleury trial is fairly unique in that almost all of the questions to be resolved by the jury are interpretive ones. With respect to the manslaughter charge, the jury must decide whether running a gun show at which children were permitted to fire machine guns is intrinsically so risky as to be criminally negligent.

Even the three charges of providing a machine gun to minors rest on an interpretive question. There is an exception to the prohibition for when the child is supervised by an adult with a machine gun license. The jury must decide what exactly constitutes "suprevision," as Fleury was licensed and present, but not directly involved in handling the guns.

Mr. Fleury has no particular expertise with respect to these interpretive questions. While he might have been able to testify as to whether he thought he was "supervising" the children firing the machine guns, it seems counterproductive to have him take more responsibility for what was happening at the gun show. Putting Mr. Fleury on the stand therefore offered a variety of dangers, but not much positive value.

The defense rests... completely

In the end, Ms. Scapicchio chose to mount no defense at all. She called no witnesses, relying instead on the strength of her cross-examinations to introduce reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.

I admit to finding this strategy a bit baffling. While there might not have been much she could do to counter the factual case presented by the prosecution, those pesky interpretive questions were left hanging. Might she not have called some expert on gun shows to testify that it is quite common to allow children to fire machine guns? Isn't there some sort of NRA guideline regarding parental responsibility for firearm safety when children are involved?

While I certainly understand the defense decision not to put Mr. Fleury on the stand, I think it might have been unwise not to mount any defense at all.

In my earlier posts, I discussed the importance of deflecting blame away from Mr. Fleury, even if that strategy required the risky move of blaming the victim's father for his death. Early in the trial, Ms. Scapicchio seemed to be following this path. Somewhat surprisingly, in her closing arguments, she asserted that the death had been a tragic accident, nothing more. She chose not to directly implicate the father. It will be interesting to see how this strategy plays out.

Blame Avoidance v. Blame Deflection: The Gun Show Uzi trial

Gun show Uzi trial highlights emotional impact of tragedy

The manslaughter trial of Edward Fleury, a retired Police Chief, finally got underway in Springfield, MA this week. The trial stems from a fatal accident at a gun show organized by Mr. Fleury, at which an 8-year-old boy, Christopher Bizilj, fatally shot himself with a lightweight Uzi submachine gun.

Prior to the original start date for the trial (which was delayed for over a month), I wrote a blog post in which I speculated about the kind of strategy the defense would have to employ in this case. Both Fleury and the two men who supplied the gun in question (who face similar charges in a separate trial) can mount legitimate defenses to the charges against them. While the boy’s death was certainly tragic and preventable, it is not clear that any of these men violated any laws that resulted in the accident.

In the earlier post, I suggested that it would be insufficient in such a emotionally charged case to simply demonstrate to the jury that the defendant’s conduct was not criminal. Terror management theory (TMT) is a psychological framework for understanding how people cope with the feelings of vulnerability and fear associated with tragic events beyond their own control. You can read more about how TMT applies to jury decision-making here. According to TMT, one of the strongest impulses in the aftermath of a tragedy is to assign responsibility or blame for what happened. Psychologically, we all want to avoid either (1) taking personal responsibility for a catastrophic event or (2) accepting that such horrific occurrences could really be random and uncontrollable.

Blame deflection v. blame avoidance

In light of these forces, I suggested that Fleury’s defense team would need to actually deflect blame onto someone else. This would allow the jury to find him not-guilty while still holding someone responsible. In the earlier post, I suggested that the safest option would be to find some government agency or inspector who had dropped the ball, in terms of allowing the boy to shoot the fatal weapon. People are more than happy in most circumstances to conclude that the “government” is at fault (Just look at the Tea Party success). The problems with such a strategy in this case are two-fold. First, this tragic event involved the direct participation of several identifiable individuals. In addition, the boy’s father videotaped the whole thing, adding to the intensely personal nature of the accident. The jury can actually see who was there when the bullets flew (Compare this with the case of the ceiling collapse in the Big Dig tunnel). As such, the jurors will be reluctant to assign blame to someone who wasn’t anywhere near the scene.

The second problem with such a strategy is that there is a lot of blame to go around. This poor boy shot his own head off in front of his whole family. Even if jurors were inclined to blame the state agency responsible for certifying gun shows and the person who permitted this one, they would still have plenty of anger left over for Mr. Fleury.

Given the unlikelihood of success from blaming a faceless bureaucracy for the boy’s death, Mr. Fleury’s defense team had little choice but to adopt the more dramatic – and risky – strategy of blaming the boy’s father for signing his 8-year-old son up to shoot the Uzi in the first place. The message has to be, “What kind of man gives his own little boy a submachine gun if the kid has no idea how to use it?” The entire defense strategy is that everyone at the gun show only did what Mr. Bizilj asked them to. He – the father – was in control of the situation at all times.

Fleury Defense Team reaches for the brass ring

The trial has been going on for a few days now and, unsurprisingly, Mr. Fleury’s defense attorney, Rosemary Scapicchio, has adopted precisely this strategy. She highlighted in her opening statement that every discretionary decision at the gun show regarding Christopher Bizilj was made by his father. In cross-examining prosecution witnesses, she has emphasized the normalcy of the gun show prior to Chistopher picking up the fatal gun. She is trying to emphasize that everything at the show was running smoothly until Mr. Bizilj encouraged his son to take the uzi.

This strategy is fraught with danger, however. Beyond the obvious backlash associated with “blaming the victim,” Ms. Scapicchio would be wise to worry about reactance from jurors. Reactance is an instinctual response to having one’s autonomy threatened. The jurors might not like being told whom to hold responsible.

I have worked on several cases (both criminal and civil) in which a victim’s parent, or parents, might have been considered at least partially responsible for a child’s harm. My experience with such circumstances suggests that jurors are often quite willing to blame a parent for negligently supervising a child. That said, jurors show a greater reluctance to do so when told to by one side or the other. The key is to give jurors everything they need to draw inferences implicating the parents without actually accusing them directly.

So far, Ms. Scapicchio has not been shy about blaming Mr. Bizilj directly. Perhaps this will set up a contest of sorts between Fleury and Bizilj, whereby the jury will vote not-guilty if they decide the father is more at fault. Just today, the fifteen-year-old boy who was supervising the uzi shooting booth testified that he twice asked Mr. Bizilj to consider a less powerful gun for his young son. I would only be concerned that the jurors will resent being asked to blame the father for his own son’s death. If they feel manipulated into a false choice between the defendant and the father, they might just convict out of spite against the defense team.

We’ll just have to wait and find out with everyone else.

The Hung Jury: American Exceptionalism Strikes Again

Hung Juries: Judicial Flukes or Systemic Problem?

The American juridical system is one of the few in the world that allows for the possibility of a hung jury. All of the "mixed" systems of Europe and South America, wherein a group of laypersons deliberates with a small group of judges, use decision rules that preclude hung juries. A supermajority might be required for a conviction (like 8 votes out of 13), but a failure to secure that many guilty votes always results in an acquittal.

Even those countries that inherited the British Common Law system have largely moved away from voting procedures that encourage hung juries. England abandoned unanimity in 1974, allowing 10 votes out of 12 to determine a verdict. most Australian states have adopted some form of supermajority rule. Only the United States, and our neighbor to the north, Canada, insist on unanimity in jury verdicts.

As such, the hung jury is a fairly uniquely American phenomenon. Estimates of the frequency of hung juries vary quite a lot. Most scholars use an estimate of about 7% of criminal trials. The number is higher for felony trials and higher still for felony trials in ethnically diverse communities, such as New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. Recent estimates for felony trials in Los Angeles put the hung jury rate at over 20%.

An understudied phenomenon

There has not been a great deal of scholarly attention paid to the hung jury. Occasionally, some group or another will try to measure the hung jury rate in some locality or another. It is difficult to get a handle on why some juries hang and others do not because jurors are not obligated to discuss their deliberations with the public.

As followers of The Jury Box Blog know, I am extremely interested in consequences of maintaining the unanimity requirement in criminal trials in the United States. We allegedly celebrate our diversity of opinions and values and yet we insist that everyone on a jury reach the same conclusions.

As one small step in the direction of understanding the hung jury situation in the united States, I have started a new Twitter feed, called HungJuries, dedicated to exploring the frequency of American hung juries, as well as the causes and consequences of juries failing to reach unanimous consensus.

I am hoping that you will find the news articles and scholarly pieces I link to from this account of interest for your own practice. Please feel free to retweet anything you see there and tell your friends about the new HungJuries twitter feed.

Tragedy, Hindsight Bias and the Blame Game

A Tragic Spray of Bullets
At a gun show in Westfield, Massachusetts, organized by a former police chief, Chistopher Bizilj (age 8) lost his life. Among the guns that two men brought to the show was a small Uzi submachine gun. They handed the gun to Bizilj, who started to fire the gun, lost control, and accidentally and fatally shot himself.

Now, the event organizer and two weapons providers are on trial for involuntary manslaughter in the boy's death. Originally scheduled for trial this month, the case has been continued until December.

The three defendants will certainly attempt to defend their actions as inherently safe and reasonable. Their defense will be that this was a horrible, unforeseeable accident. Such a defense might have difficulty holding sway even among a group of philosophers and legal scholars, sitting around a conference table. The odds are even longer in an emotionally charged courtroom.

No Such Thing as an Accident?
One major obstacle facing the defense is "hindsight bias," a term that I have discussed multiple times in other Jury Box posts. In short, hindsight bias refers to the tendency of people to perceive a highly unlikely, or freakish, event as having been more likely than it was, just because it happened. For instance, if someone gets struck by lightening in your home town, you might come to believe that this is a much more common occurrence than it actually is.

Hindsight Bias tends to lead jurors down a path of irrational inferences. Because people don't like the idea of life being beyond their own abilities to control it, they tend also to overestimate the likelihood that someone is actually responsible for a freakish occurrence, especially a dangerous one. The crazier and more improbable the circumstances, the more uncomfortable it makes people feel. They feel increasingly compelled to assign blame to someone. This results in a rather perverse relationship between the randomness of an event and the need of people to hold someone responsible for it. (This is actually the nexus of hindsight bias and terror management theory.)

One of the greatest fears facing any parent is the prospect of losing a child to senseless violence. A juror will internally resist seeing this event as an accident because doing so only highlights the vulnerability of their own children. While the defense might hope for some support among jurors who are gun advocates, such people are likely to try to differentiate themselves from the defendants. "Oh, a responsible gun owner would never handle a weapon that way. I always lock my guns when children are around. I'd never hand a loaded weapon to a small boy. That's just what the left-wing loonies think we do all the time."

From Blame Avoidance to Blame Shifting
In light of the issues identified above, it will be very difficult for the defendants in this case to convince a jury that the boy's death was simply the result of a tragic accident. The desire to hold someone accountable will just be too strong. The defendants would do well to try to shift the blame elsewhere. This strategy is not without risk and might engender some resentment among jurors. But it also just might work.

The major difficulty here might be finding someone else to point the finger at. One obvious possibility is the boy's parents. What were they doing taking an 8-year old to a gun show? Did his father really let him just take the gun? Had they ever taught him about gun safety? The danger of such a strategy, however, is self-evident. Because the parents have just suffered such a terrible loss, the defendants would face major resentment for "blaming the victim."

Perhaps the event organizer can point to regulations that precluded him from keeping children out of the event. Perhaps the suppliers can point to manufacturer guidelines that identify the gun as suitable for use by youngsters. The gun suppliers have already claimed that Fleury, the event organizer, incorrectly assured them that it was legal in Massachusetts for a minor to fire an Uzi. In addition, the gun club that hosted the event has already settled its criminal charges. This provides an opportunity to assign blame to a party that won't be in the courtroom to defend itself.

Over all, I believe that the defendants in this case will have a very difficult time overcoming the effects of hindsight bias. I fully expect plea deals to be struck before the jury ever gets charged.

Saving Chuck Turner from Himself: The value of witness prep focus groups

Chuck Turner, a longtime Boston City Counsellor, was convicted last week of taking bribes. He was arrested after the FBI conducted a sting operation, employing one of Turner's associates as an informant. Ronald Wilburn was sent into Turner's office to ask for help obtaining a liquor license. While there, Wilburn slipped Turner $1000 in cash during a handshake, all of which was caught on FBI surveillance video.

There are a couple of noteworthy features of the trial. First, the video is very grainy. So, while it is clear that something changed hands, and that it was almost certainly money, there is no way to tell how much. Secondly, Mr. Wilburn was overtly hostile to the FBI during his testimony. While he generally corroborated  the FBI's account of what went down, he greatly resented having been forced to participate in the sting operation and did not try to hide his contempt for the Feds in court.

So, after the Prosecution rested, things did not look good for Chuck Turner. There was, however, some hope that some jurors might have been upset with the way in which the FBI agents conducted themselves. While I rather doubt that any of them would have voted to acquit, I could have envisioned them settling on a verdict centered around minor charges.(Obstruction of justice).

Then Chuck Turner opened his mouth. Despite his attorney begging him not to take the stand, and one supporter literally trying to drag him back to his seat by his suit cuff, Turner insisted on testifying in his own defense. Turner took the stand and proceeded to hem and haw and fail to remember things. He denied small things that had been well-documented and claimed amnesia when convenient. In short, he came across as a smug, contemptuous liar, who believed that he could wiggle out of any situation on the strength of his own charm and guile. Needless to say, the jury didn't buy it.

Any experienced litigator has had a client who just didn't know when to keep his mouth shut. Either the person has insisted on testifying when he shouldn't have, or he insisted on giving a long, convoluted answer to a straightforward question. So, what can be done about a client who insists on talking himself into an adverse verdict?

Typically, such a client has a poor sense about how his testimony will be perceived. Either he simply does not appreciate how he comes across in public, or he fails to anticipate how poorly his style will translate into a courtroom setting. Since many such people are in positions of authority, they are not used to taking directions about message from others. So, how do you convince someone like this to do what's in his own best interest?

This is where videotaped witness preparation can really save the day. Rather than having a hypothetical discussion with your client about what to do on the stand, it is critical to submit the client to a realistic direct and cross examination. Make sure that the attorney you have recruited to act as opposing counsel is very well-versed in your case and really goes after your client. Exploit his weaknesses, trap him in contradictions and let him hang himself.

Once the session is over, review the videotape with your client. In most cases, the witness will quickly come to appreciate his deficiencies on the stand. Where the person continues to be obtuse (or insists he can fix things with a snap of his fingers), the next step is to assemble a small focus group of jury eligible people from the relevant jurisdiction. Show the practice testimony to these subjects and have a moderator lead a discussion about their reactions.

If Chuck Turner's defense team had conducted this simple exercise, I am pretty confident that his lawyers would have been able to convince him not to take the stand at his trial. While he might have still been convicted of some crime, he would not have created a permanent record of himself lying under oath in a court of law.

The lesson: Sometimes it is not enough to tell your client what to expect at trial -- You have to show him.

Trial Strategy can be as much about When as What

Two Defendants, Two Trials

As followers of The Jury Box Blog know, I have been blogging and tweeting regularly about the trials of Michael and Carolyn Riley, who were both accused of murdering their four-year-old daughter, Rebecca, by administering to her dangerously high doses of ADHD medicine, and then refusing to seek medical attention when she fell deathly ill.

Originally, the pair was scheduled to be tried together. Shortly before jury selection was scheduled to begin, defense counsel made a motion for separate trials, on the grounds that each was likely to implicate the other in mounting a defense. The district attorney did not object and the judge granted the request, recognizing the potential conflict of interest.

The district attorney was then faced with a new set of tasks. Rather than convincing one jury that the couple acted in concert, he had to convince one jury that Carolyn was responsible and then a completely different jury that Michael was responsible.

Who should go first?

Facing the prospect of successive trials, the DA had at his disposal one strategic lever. He got to decide the order in which the defendants would be tried. Before reading further, consider what you would have done? Who goes first?

The DA decided to try Carolyn first, followed by Michael. I think this was a wise strategy (and not just because it worked). At the time, I remember thinking how shrewd this was. Here's why:

Despite best efforts to select jurors in the second trial who are not informed about what happened in the first trial, it is impossible to do so with any confidence. Therefore, the DA had to think about the consequences of the first verdict on the second trial. The first step in the process is to consider the relative culpabilities of the two defendants.

Carolyn Riley is something of an enigma. She seems emotionally detached and not especially bright. There were times during recorded interviews when she didn't seem to really understand what was going on. While Carolyn certainly was not as caring towards her children as one would have hoped, she did not seem to have the mean streak that characterized Michael's personality. In many ways, she seemed to be in fear of her husband. Michael Riley had even been forced by court order to leave their family home at a previous location.

While it might have been a long-shot, it was not out of the question for Carolyn's defense team to mount an insanity defense. Who knows whether her kids were actually mentally ill in any way, but Carolyn clearly had some serious cognitive and emotional problems. So, while Carolyn seems to have actually performed more physical acts that contributed to Rebecca's death, she cut a more sympathetic figure than did her husband, Michael.

Consequences of First Trial on Second Jury

As a result of these factors, it seemed to be a safer bet to secure a conviction against Michael than against Carolyn. With this in mind, it definitely made sense to try Carolyn first. Consider the possible outcomes of Carolyn's trial. If she had been found not-guilty, the jury in Michael's trial would have felt particularly compelled to hold someone responsible for the senseless tragedy of Rebecca's death. If Carolyn had been found guilty of some lesser offense (as she was, in the end), the jury could certainly find room to decide that Michael was even more at fault. If Carolyn had been found guilty of first-degree murder, Michael's jury might have reasoned that he was at least as responsible and that fairness required the same verdict for him. So, trying Carolyn first would not interfere with the prosecution of Michael and might even help the case.

On the other hand, trying Michael first might have posed some problems for the prosecution against Carolyn. Had Michael been found not-guilty, Carolyn's jury would have likely considered it completely unfair to convict her of something for which her abusive husband got off scot-free. This dynamic pops up a lot in criminal cases. When an accomplice turns state's evidence and gets a cushy deal, a jury is sometimes reluctant to convict the defendant of anything too serious, on the grounds that the outcomes for the two are unfairly disparate. Jurors often don't even realize that they are applying such a "relative justice" metric.

Even if Michael Riley were tried first and convicted, Carolyn's trial team would play up the degree of dominance he exerted over the family. A juror who was looking for a reason to show mercy to Carolyn could seize on Michael's conviction as justification for leniency with respect to Carolyn. Since the "real bad guy" has already been convicted and Rebecca's murder will not go unpunished, a juror would be able to more easily justify (to herself and fellow jurors) going easy on Carolyn.

Applying Lessons Learned

It is, of course, easy to look brilliant playing Monday morning quarterback. The DA did, in fact, try Carolyn first. The defense never raised the issue of Carolyn's own mental state. The Commonwealth secured a conviction on Second Degree Murder. The subsequent trial of Michael Riley was quite unremarkable, relying on similar tactics as had been used unsuccessfully in Carolyn's trial. The two main defense tactics were to contest the Coroner's conclusion that Rebecca died from the drug overdose, rather than the pneumonia from which she was suffering, and pinning as much blame as possible on the Tufts staff psychologist who had prescribed Rebecca's medicine without conducting a thorough evaluation of the child. The major flaw in this approach was its failure to address the severe neglect of Rebecca in her final hours, as she begged for help while dying in her own home. At some level, I don't think the jurors cared as much about what killed her as they did about how her parents just let her die because they couldn't be bothered to get her medical care.

The outcomes of these cases, however, were far from a certainty. The DA did a good job, including the decision to try the defendants in the strategically sensible order. There is an important lesson here. Procedural decisions can have important strategic consequences. They should not be made lightly, or based solely on convenience.

When things go wrong with a pharmaceutical, it often triggers a whole series of lawsuits. A plaintiffs' attorney might have several cases against the same company. In addition to deciding on the best venue for bringing the suits, the lawyer should also think hard about the order in which she wants to bring the cases.

There is a high-profile case developing up here in Massachusetts, involving a high school student who hung herself after prolonged bullying by classmates. Criminal charges have been filed against nine different students, some of whom are charged as adults. The DA will have an interesting dilemma with respect to the order in which to prosecute these cases. Not all of the defendants are charged with the same crimes (a couple of boys are charged with statutory rape) and they seemed to have directed varying degrees of hostility towards the victim. It will be interesting to see the order in which the DA decides to proceed.

Heat, Humidity and Trial Consulting: What Services Lawyers Use Where

What we've learned so far

To review, I posted a short survey about trial and graphics consultant usage by trial attorneys. I encourage those who have not yet taken the survey to check it out here. In my previous two posts (Post 1, Post 2), I reviewed some general trends in the data. While the number of respondents (42) precludes any concrete conclusions, the data are at least suggestive.

More experienced attorneys were more likely to report having used trial consulting and graphics consulting services at some point in their careers. This is not surprising since a lawyer who has tried a large number of cases is likely to have run across at least one along the way that warranted the hiring of a jury expert or graphics professional. In addition, litigants in high-stakes cases, where the hiring of outside consultants seems most likely, typically choose to place their cases in the hands of experienced litigators. Similarly, large firms generally assign their largest cases to their most experienced lawyers.

The second major finding is that civil defense attorneys are more likely to hire trial and graphics consultants than are their colleagues who handle plaintiffs' cases. Many of the criminal defense attorneys who participated in the survey reported having used a trial consultant, but this result is likely skewed by the large number of them who had taken advantage of my Pro Bono services. Many fewer of them reported having employed a graphics consultant.

Who Wants What When?

I was not surprised that civil defense attorneys were the primary consumers of trial consulting services. They typically have an insurance company bankrolling litigation and are more likely to have corporate clients. So, the deep-pocket, repeat-player litigants tend to be on the defense side of the ledger. 

I also expected to find that civil defense attorneys used a different mix of trial consulting services than did their plaintiff counterparts. This was not born out by the data. Consider the following graph. You can click on any graph to view it much larger.

Because civil defense attorneys make up such a large fraction of my sample, these absolute numbers are a bit deceiving. To correct for this, I converted these data into percentage of the relevant sample. The reconfigured graph is below.

Those plaintiff attorneys who reported using trial consulting services were just as likely to report running mock trials (a big ticket item) as were civil defense attorneys. One possibility is that once the stakes cross a critical threshold, a plaintiff attorney thinks just like a defense lawyer. That is, there is an "all or nothing" mentality to trial consultant usage. The other possibility is that many plaintiffs' attorneys are unaware that trial consultants provide a suite of inexpensive services, as well as conducting large pre-trial research projects. That is, a plaintiff attorney might know that she can hire a consultant to run a mock trial for $30,000, but she might not know that she can hire one to help draft voir dire questions for $1,000. This is a question for further study.

Note the frequent usage of both case evaluation and jury selection services by criminal defense attorneys. This is, once again, the product of this category of respondents being dominated by attorneys who have received pro bono assistance from me, which has taken the form of case evaluations and jury selection help. It remains an open question whether these are the services most often employed by criminal defense attorneys more generally.

Where is all the action?

When breaking the sample into regions, things got a bit dicey. With only a few dozen lawyers completing the survey, it was simply not possible to sensibly explore which regions' litigators used precisely which services. I did look into using only civil defense attorneys to investigate regional differences, but what few trends emerged mirrored those present in the full sample. I illustrate below trial and graphic consultant usage by region, without attention paid to specific services.

In considering these graphs, it is important to keep in mind the mix of attorneys represented in each region. The West, Mideast and South regions are comprised of 1/2 to 2/3 civil defense attorneys. The New England region sample is dominated by criminal defense attorneys and only contains two civil defense attorneys. The Midwest sample is entirely civl defense attorneys.

With all these caveats, are there any comparisons to be made, at all? Well, it is instructive to look at the responses of attorneys in the Mideast and South regions. The sample sizes are comparable, as are the distributions across legal specialties. Note, however, how much more likely a lawyer from the Mideast region is to report that she had never used either a trial or graphics consultant. There is one young lawyer from New York who reported extremely high usage rates for both trial and graphics services, as well as a strange mix of case types. If one drops this observation as unreliable, the differences between the two regions become even more pronounced.

Anecdotally, I know Florida, Georgia and Texas to be hotbeds of trial consultant activity. There are, however, several trial consulting firms with offices in the tri-state region (near New York City). As such, I am a bit surprised by these dramatic differences.

What next?

I designed this little survey to gather some preliminary information and motivate further study. I think that it has served to accomplish that task. I know that the Research Committee of the American Society of Trial Consultants has plans to conduct a broader and deeper study of these issues in the near future. To that end, if you have suggestions for questions to ask, lawyers groups to approach for participation or groups that would be interested in the results, please let me know. I will forward along all correspondence to the Research Committee.

While a data dude at heart, I know the value of qualitative research, too. So, if you have any questions about this survey or comments about my analysis, please do get in touch. Tell me your story. Share your concerns.

In the meantime, I will leave the survey open for further respondents. If I get enough additional data, I'll post an update here on my blog.

To those of you who took the time to complete the survey, "Thanks very much for your help."

-Edward

Different Strokes for Different Folks: Consultant Usage varies by specialty and experience

Digging Deeper in the Data

In my last post, I reviewed some general trends in the data from my survey of trial and graphics consultant usage by trial attorneys. As I mentioned in the last post, the survey is completely confidential and only takes about 2 minutes to fill out. Several lawyers responded to my invitation and followed this link to participate in the survey. As such, the data I review today includes a few more observations. The more the merrier, so please take the survey if you have not yet done so!

In perusing the data, I noticed a few interesting trends. These relate to how long a respondent has been practicing law, what kind of cases she handles and where her office is located. I now turn to some of these trends.

Youth vs. Experience

One might expect that young lawyers would be more likely to hire trial and graphics consultants because these folks have grown up in the "high-tech" era. Everything in their lives has been accompanied by fancy graphics and animation. These young lawyers also went to law school after the adoption of the interdisciplinary approach to legal education. A lawyer under 50 years of age is more likely to have been taught by dual-degree professors and might, therefore, have a greater appreciation for the value of psychology and other social sciences in litigation.

As illustrated in the graphs below, this expectation is not born out in the data.

Trial Consultant Usage by Attorneys

More than 15 years experience    Less than 15 years Experience

Graphics Consultant Usage by Attorneys

More than 15 years Experience       Less than 15 years Experience

Trial lawyers with more than 15 years of experience were much more likely to report having employed a trial consultant or graphics consultant than their younger colleagues. So, what do we make of these results?

I think that there are a few factors at work here. First of all, a more experienced litigator will have handled a larger number of cases. As such, she is more likely to have come across some case along the way that seemed to require the expertise of an outside consultant, with respect to either jury or graphics issues.

Second, more experienced litigators tend to handle the higher stakes cases. This is both because litigants with a lot on the line seek out experienced litigators and because large firms assign their highest stakes cases to their most experienced lawyers. These high stakes cases are the ones for which lawyers see the most justification for incurring the expense of a trial or graphics consultant.

Exactly one respondent indicated that she uses a trial consultant in more than half of her cases. She is also the one lawyer who said she uses a graphics consultant more than half the time. This litigator has been practicing for less than five years, supporting, at least anecdotally, the "new breed of lawyer" hypothesis.

Cost Conscious Courtroom Counsellors

In the previous section, I raised for the first time the influence clients can have on their attorneys' trial strategy decisions. The survey sample is made up almost entirely of three kinds of trial lawyers, with different kinds of clients. More than half of the respondents handle predominantly civil defense cases. The remainder is roughly evenly divided between plaintiffs' attorneys and criminal defense attorneys. The differences in reported trial and graphics consultant usage among these three groups is quite remarkable.

Trial Consultant Usage by Attorneys by Primary Practice Area

Civil Defense         Civil Plaintiff           Criminal Defense

Civil defense attorneys are very often hired by insurance companies, who are the ultimate deep-pocket, repeat players in the judicial system. Handling thousands of trials annually, insurance company risk managers understand the value of pretrial research, witness preparation and well-designed jury selection strategy. A litigator might not be inclined to reach out to a consultant for advice, figuring that she has all the tools she needs to win a case. When an insurance company claims supervisor tells that litigator to run a focus group study, she does as she is told. From a personal perspective, I know that many civil defense attorneys call me because an insurance company has told them to "get your jury guy on the phone and set up a mock trial." Under such an arrangement, the litigator incurs none of the cost associated with hiring a consultant.

By contrast, most plaintiffs' attorneys reported having never used a trial consultant. This should not be surprising, given that their clients tend to have less money to work with. In addition, many plaintiffs, having never been involved in a trial before, have unrealistic expectations about the cost of litigation. A plaintiff attorney is under enormous pressure to keep costs down. The financial situation facing a plaintiff attorney tends to differ from that of the defense attorney on the other side of the aisle. Many plaintiffs' attorneys are solo practitioners or members of very small firms, handling mostly small cases. When a high stakes case does come along, such an attorney faces severe cash flow problems financing the litigation. While such a lawyer might very much want to hire a trial or graphics consultant, she might simply not have access to the funds to do so. I know that many of us in the trial consulting community have attempted to implement creative fee structures to make our services more available to plaintiffs' attorneys.

The graph representing trial consulting usage by criminal defense attorneys is probably quite misleading. I head the New England Team of the pro bono initiative of the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC). In this capacity, I have been running free clinics for criminal defense attorneys here in Massachusetts. I know that 3 of the 5 criminal defense lawyers who report having used a trial consultant are folks I have personally helped as part of this pro bono initiative. I would need a much larger, and geographically diverse, sample to know how common it is for criminal defense attorneys to use trial consultants.

By comparison, the data on graphics consultant usage should be more reliable.

Graphics Consultant Usage by Attorneys by Primary Practice Area

Civil Defense            Civil Plaintiff          Criminal Defense

The discrepancy between civil plaintiff and defense attorney resource usage is even more pronounced with respect to graphics consulting. A quarter of civil defense attorneys reported hiring a graphics consultant for more than 20% of their cases. By contrast, three-quarters of plaintiffs' lawyers report never having hired anyone to design or produce courtroom graphics.

The one young lawyer, who indicated that she uses trial and graphics consultants in more than half of her cases, handles both criminal and civil defense cases.

From What to Where

We have now discovered differences in consultant usage among lawyers who handle different types of cases. Civil defense lawyers make much more use of trial consultants and graphics consultants than do their less well financed colleagues. We also know that in some areas of tort law, the defense wins 90% of jury trials. It would be purely speculative to connect this success rate with use of trial and graphics consulting services, but it is suggestive enough to warrant further study.

Fortunately, with the exception of criminal defense attorneys, the lawyers who completed this survey are distributed throughout the country. This will provide me an opportunity to explore whether there are regional variations in trial and graphics consulting usage. I will have to be mindful, however, of the trends I have uncovered with respect to seniority and practice area. If the lawyers in one region seem to hire a lot of graphics consultants, I will need to make sure that it is not simply because they are all civil defense attorneys.

Finally, I wish to explore whether there are any systematic variations in the types of services for which attorneys hire consultants. Is it mostly for jury selection in one region and mock trials in another? Do certain types of attorneys hire consultants to help with witness preparation more than others? I will address these questions, along with geographic variations, in my next post.

Trial Consultant Usage All Over the Map

The Survey at a Glance

Several weeks ago, I was in conversation with a colleague about the different approaches taken by various lawyers with respect to using trial consulting services. Some lawyers don't see any use for our expertise, or believe that their clients just can't afford to use us. Some lawyers employ the occasional consultant to run jury research, but really want a project manager more than an expert in jury behavior. There are many lawyers who will call in a trial consultant for the occasional case when she experiences uncertainty regarding a particular jury issue. Finally, there are a handful of lawyers who work with a trial consultant on virtually every case, finding their expertise to be well-worth the investment.

I commented, rather off-handedly, that I thought there were probably lots of regional differences. I think that differences in procedural rules (e.g. attorney conducted voir dire, ad damnum usage) and legal culture result in their being jurisdictions where litigators make great use of trial consulting services and others where attorneys rarely hire trial consultants.

I soon realized that this was a testable hypothesis. So, I went off to SurveyMonkey.com and crafted a short survey to investigate which litigators hire trial consultants (and courtroom graphics consultants) and which ones don't. I included questions about how long each respondent has been a lawyer, what kind of cases she handles, and where her office is located.

The survey is still live and I will be analyzing the data long into the future. So, if you are a trial lawyer, and you have not yet filled out the survey, please do so here. It only takes about 2 minutes and it is completely anonymous.

Spreading the Word

As many of you know, I am extremely active on LinkedIn. I posted a notice about the survey as a discussion on many of the groups to which I belong. I also tweeted an invitation to participate on several occasions. Finally, I sent out an email to everyone on my professional distribution list (formerly used for my newsletter, before it became this blog). I would conservatively estimate that at least one invitation to participate was seen by over 500 litigators.

Well, I wasn't offering to pay respondents. I wasn't raffling off an iPod or a timeshare in Maui. Lawyers are used to billing clients for every 6 minutes of their time and they are extremely sensitive to concerns about online privacy. So, the response rate was not great.

As of today, 37 people have completed the survey. Of these, 5 indicated that they were not lawyers (although a few might work for law firms in some other capacity). 28 of the respondents indicated that they heard about the survey on LinkedIn. 8 found out through email, and 1 via Twitter. Needless to say, any conclusions to be drawn from such a small sample will be speculative in nature. I do hope, however, that the results will give us something to build upon in the future.

Preliminary Results: Trial Consulting

I was careful in the survey to differentiate between "Trial Consulting" services, which deal with the social psychology of jury behavior (jury selection, witness preparation, focus group studies, etc.) and "Trial Graphics" services, which include illustrations and animations for courtroom use. Here is a graph illustrating the frequency with which survey respondents employ "Trial Consulting" services, in terms of percentage of cases.

Trial Consulting Service Usage: Full Sample

As you can see from the figure, very few attorneys indicated that they used trial consultants for more than 20% of their cases. The interesting distinction here seems to be between those litigators who sometimes use trial consultants and those that never do. For my sample, approximately 60% of respondents indicated they had ever used a trial consultant. 

There are a couple of reasons to be skeptical of these numbers. First, I would expect that participating in the survey would be more interesting to those lawyers with some familiarity with trial consulting. As such, I thought that most of the respondents would be lawyers who had worked with trial consultants in the past. Second, the publication of the survey was heavily skewed towards people who know me in some capacity. Of those, I would expect that my clients would be particularly inclined to help me out by filling out the survey. (Based on zip codes and other survey responses, I am fairly sure that about a half-dozen respondents are, in fact, clients of mine.) In light of these factors, I believe that these results probably overestimate trial consultant usage in the general population.

I am located in Massachusetts and most of my clients are from New England. This is reflected in the large number of respondents from this region (9). That said, it is gratifying to see that the remainder of the respondents come from all over the United States. I will be discussing regional variations in the data in my next post.

Preliminary Results: Graphics Consulting

I am what I refer to as a "behavioral" trial consultant. While I advise clients on the kinds of exhibits they might employ at trial, and evaluate the utility of the graphs and illustrations they already have, I do not provide trial graphics services. As such, the responses with respect to graphics consulting are probably less skewed by the participation of my own clients. The graph below shows graphics consulting usage for the complete sample.

Graphics Consulting Service Usage: Full Sample

About half of the survey's respondents have used a graphics consultant for at least one case. I think that most of us would expect trial graphics to be used more frequently than trial consulting. The discrepancy between this expectation and my data undoubtedly arises from the participation of many of my clients. Several of these attorneys, especially those doing criminal defense work, have benefitted from my active pro bono practice. They have not had similar access to affordable trial graphics assistance.

Do the Same Lawyers use Both Services?

As I mention above, there is reason to believe that at least a handful of attorneys would make use of trial consulting services, but not graphics consulting ones. Is this a common occurrence? The graph below answers this question.

Joint Usage of Trial and Graphics Consulting Services

As a general rule, lawyers either use litigation consulting services of both types, or they don't use either. Only a few litigators reported using graphics consultants but not trial consultants. I find this result a bit surprising. While I did not ask respondents about the size of their firms, I would expect that this sample is heavily weighted towards small and mid-sized firms, whose attorneys tend to be heavier users of LinkedIn. Lawyers from large firms (many hundreds of lawyers) are unlikely to have found their way to my survey. Such firms handle huge IP and business litigation cases, in which courtroom exhibits are sophisticated and plentiful. The underrepresentation of such litigators from my sample have certainly affected the nature of my results.

Questions to be Explored

These preliminary results are certainly interesting. We have responses from many attorneys who have used a trial or graphics consultant to help with jury trials. Who are they? What kind of work do they do? Where do they practice? These are the more nuanced questions that I will be addressing in my next two posts.

In addition to surveying experience with consultants, I asked respondents about which kinds of services they had hired consultants to perform. I provided an extensive list, including jury selection, witness preparation, illustrations, animations and more. I will explore in a future post trends in the data, with respect to which trial lawyers made use of which services.

So, stay tuned! Same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.

And remember, it's not too late to contribute your own experience to the data. Take the survey here.