Jury Duty and Lessons Learned

I think of myself as a social scientist with expertise in negotiation and conflict resolution. This knowledge was useful in examining the goings on during the deliberation process. I will attempt to explain some of my observations herein.

The most important cause of near deadlock in our deliberations came out of the legal terminology that was part of the jury instruction. In particular, the phrase substantial motivating reason was particularly onerous. Because the phrase contained the word substantial the default reasoning for both pro-defendant and pro-plaintiff members of the jury was that it posed an important or sizable role in the decision making process of the defendant. The instructions stated that the phrase did not imply an important or sizable role in the decision making process. After several days of arguing it occurred to me that substantial motivating reason seemed to mean something that was taken into consideration at some point regardless of how large it loomed in the decision. The pro-defendant jurors heard me out and, yet, stuck to their guns.

Another lesson was that some jurors were not looking for logic or rationality. Deliberation matters were explained in detail from numerous perspectives without causing these jurors to deviate from their decisions. There were jurors who, even after some point of deliberation was proven logically, would shake their head no. Another juror expressed their loathing to decide because no decision felt right to them.

The definition of the word fraud became an issue during the later stages of deliberations. Based on the evidence I thought there were obvious logical steps from the defendant’s actions to make a case for fraud, in that, based on the evidence, there was a decision made to terminate the plaintiff and thereafter decisions and numerous mistakes were made that were seemingly meant to justify that decision. However, at this point (the last day of deliberations), jury fatigue (or, alternately, jury stress) seemed to have set in. The jury as a whole seemed to be tired of the trial and just wanted to go home. After some quick negotiations a couple of votes changed so that we would be able to render a verdict.

There were a couple of other lessons gleaned from the trial itself. The first was the defendant’s attorney’s strategy. He called numerous witnesses whose testimony was inconsequential. He kept pointing to an employee handbook whose instructions the defendant had plainly failed to follow. He continuously pointed to actions taken by the defendant that were not germane to the points being deliberated. I have pointed out that neither side offered a compelling narrative. I would therefore say that this attorney’s strategy was to baffle the jury with his bullshit. It seems to have been effective.

The plaintiff’s attorney was in the habit of framing questions to the defendant’s witnesses with, “Would you agree with me that …?” I explained to the attorney after the trial concluded that a person being questioned by someone they view as an adversary or in an oppositional frame will go through astounding mental gymnastics to avoid agreeing with such a question. I demonstrated by asking the attorney, “Would you agree with me that all attorneys are shysters?” Even though I was not in an oppositional frame with the attorney, they seem to have gotten my point.

I would say that I learned a few things from this trial. It seems to have been one of the purest tests of my knowledge and training that I have encountered. I am happy that I slipped onto this jury, even if I am an idiot who couldn’t avoid jury duty.