Benefits of post-trial interviews speak for themselves

We jury consultants interview hundreds of jurors after trial to learn specifics about what went down during deliberations, how they reacted to witnesses and evidence, and to find out generally what went wrong and what went right. Because there will always be a next time, it is extremely helpful to know what jurors really thought last time. An expert witness can make a lasting impression on jurors and have a huge impact at trial. Since expert witnesses are often recycled, it's imperative to understand how jurors receive them. When lawyers see an expert with the right credentials who reflects their case themes, they often rest assured that they have a brilliant ace in the hole. Not so fast. A sampling of jurors from different cases reveals they want approachable, likeable, down-to-earth witnesses who bring something to the case that helps them make their decision. Check out the following juror comments: - "I didn't like [a company representative]. During his part of it, he seemed like the defendant knew there was a [contaminant] in their product and didn't use a warning label. I think he hurt the Defendant's case, because I think the defendant knew they should have had a warning label." - "I think [a company representative] is the one who got the numbers wrong on the chart. He contradicted everything he wrote in his report. His response when he was asked about it was that it was a typo. It made us question whether he was lying about it to help the Defense." - "I have mixed feelings about him. He knew what he was talking about. He always testifies for the Defense though, and that hurt him." - "[The key plaintiffs' witness] was arrogant. He overplayed his hand a bit. He could have said that he was really upset when he found out about the conspiracy, but he was dramatic about it all. It was too much." - "[An economist's] reports seemed accurate. She did a lot of research and knew exactly why her numbers were changed when she had to change her numbers. She was very detailed and broke down all the calculations." - "First [plaintiff's] witness, John Doe, was not impressive. He could have videotaped his testimony - it was very rehearsed." We also probe jurors about what they liked most and least about the case in general and the overall process. Often jurors are confused when they first arrive. Here they are, suddenly sworn in to serve as a juror on a case they know absolutely nothing about, often in an industry with which they are unfamiliar. Providing pre-instruction and clarifying the role of the jury helps jurors focus. In addition, they usually remember things that they find confusing or annoying. Trials are long and laborious to laypeople, especially civil trials involving complicated information. Jurors often complain about overlapping witnesses and redundant questioning. Here are some general juror comments about parties, lawyers and the process: - "Defendant would have been better to show us documentation. Even if they said, 'Here are our sales records' or 'We never sold products to that company,' some sort of paper trail would have been very helpful." - "My husband is in law enforcement and I watch a lot of crime shows and Judge Judy. I was prepared that the defense would discredit the plaintiffs. One thing that was hard was that it was not as entertaining as I had expected and it was more information than what I wanted to hear. It was hard to listen and pay attention closely. A lot was over my head and insurance information is not something that we listen to every day. It was difficult sometimes to stay engaged." - "It would have helped to know what the question was that we were supposed to answer. We knew it involved a fraud case, but none of us knew what question we were going to answer." - "I liked Mr. Doe, who we called Clooney because of the resemblance. I liked him because he got to the point very quickly and would cut people off if they started talking too much. Again, he was snappy. I liked the fact that he got right to the point and he cut people off but in a polite way." - "Having the scientists come up with a Defense strategy seems totally inappropriate, and the DEFENDANT paid for a lot of the studies that were conducted. Also, there was testimony about having Senators in the DEFENDANT'S pocket to get the regulations changed." - "I think [the plaintiff's attorney] was really good. The only thing I didn't like is when he called out his own witnesses and got frustrated with his own witnesses. He should have handled himself better." - "The only thing is that it seems like for [my first time on jury duty], both sides need to be cognizant about how long they are keeping the jury. The judge tried to give us breaks but often the testimony was going way over and the judge had to interrupt. We tried not to wet our pants and it is hard to focus. Even if they aren't done, give us a break. We can pay attention better. Some things were lost because we were clock watching." - "[The plaintiff's second chair] seemed to be 'out' as far as the process. Snickering, laughing and I did not appreciate that. We are in court a long time and sometimes it is very boring and it was tough to stay focused and there were few breaks. I was trying to pay attention and he was distracting. He crossed Dr. Doe and was really loud and stood right in front of the jury and talk[ed] very loudly about something outrageous. His whole demeanor was bad. Did not help his case at all. Personally, I did not react to him very well." We learn a lot from post-trial interviews. Obviously, for confidentiality purposes, I refrained from posting more substantive information about jurors' processing of specific case information. But hopefully some of the above comments effectively illustrate the value of speaking to them after every trial. For trial attorneys, it's a real gem: a low-budget endeavor with a potentially giant payoff. Published: Fri, Aug 21, 2015