Jurors, as ordinary individuals, bring a rich tapestry of human qualities to their deliberations, which profoundly influence the manner in which they process and deliberate about the facts and theories presented to them during trial. These qualities include, but are not limited to, personal experiences, emotions, biases, logical reasoning, ethical values, and social influences. Each juror's unique background shapes how they understand and interpret information, assign meaning and credibility to evidence and testimony, and ultimately, how they reach a verdict.
In my extensive career as a forensic neuropsychologist, I have offered expert testimony and opinions under oath in deposition, trail, mediation or arbitration in over 400 cases to attorneys, judges, mediators, arbitrators and juries. This experience has provided me with a broad understanding of many of the human elements that underpin the judicial process, particular in how others process my expert testimony. Observing jurors as they grapple with complex evidence and testimony, I have witnessed firsthand the diverse psychological factors that influence their behavior and decision-making.
This Forensic Update briefly explores the multifaceted human aspects that jurors and all triers of fact, bring into their deliberations. Jurors do not shed their personal histories, emotional responses, cognitive biases, logical reasoning abilities, ethical frameworks, or social dynamics at the courthouse door. Instead, these aspects are carried into the heart of judicial proceedings, subtly, sometimes not so subtly, shaping the course of justice.
For instance, a juror who has experienced a personal loss might interpret a defendant's emotional state differently from someone who has not faced similar life challenges. Personal experiences, for example, can create a lens through which jurors view the facts of a case. A juror with a history of dealing with a specific issue, such as a crime similar to the one being deliberated, might be more empathetic to the victim or, conversely, more understanding of the defendant's circumstances. Empirical studies have illustrated that personal histories can significantly sway jurors' interpretations and verdicts, sometimes resulting in a deep empathy for the parties involved, or conversely, a harsher judgment based on perceived similarities to personal adversities.
Emotions, too, play a pivotal role in how jurors process information. Despite the expectation of impartiality, jurors are not immune to the emotional weight of testimony or the gravity of the decisions they must make. Case studies have shown that emotional responses can lead to decisions that align more with a juror's feelings rather than the objective evidence.
Cognitive biases are perhaps the most insidious of influences, as they often operate below the level of conscious awareness. Biases, both conscious and unconscious, are also brought into the jury room. These can be based on race, gender, socio-economic status, or other factors and can skew a juror's perception of a witness's credibility or the validity of an argument. Confirmation bias (a tendency to favor information confirming existing beliefs), the halo effect (attributing broad positive qualities based on one favorable trait), and anchoring (relying heavily on initial information when making subsequent judgements) are just a few examples that lead to distorted judgments. Addressing these biases through jury instructions and legal strategies is a crucial task for legal professionals who seek a fair trial.
Making Testimony Real, Relevant and Resonant
Jurors’ logical reasoning, the method by which they critically evaluate evidence, also differs widely. Some jurors are more analytical, relying heavily on the factual data presented, while others may depend more on narrative coherence (consistent and logical presentation of facts) or emotional resonance (evoking shared feeling through relatable content), leading to different interpretations of the same evidence.
Moreover, jurors' ethical and moral values act as an internal compass guiding their decisions. These values influence how jurors assign blame or responsibility and assess the credibility of witnesses. Attorneys often appeal to these values, framing their arguments to resonate with widely held moral principles. Social dynamics within the jury itself can also impact individual decision-making. The influence of more dominant personalities, the desire for group cohesion, and the pressure to reach a consensus can all steer the deliberation process in unexpected directions.
Understanding and respecting the human qualities that jurors or any trier of fact, bring to their deliberations is crucial if they are to listen and believe my testimony. This requires never communicating in a manner that leads them to believe that I think that I am smarter than them, and always conveying my respect for the challenging process they must engage in to reach a verdict. This process requires my recognition of the diversity of thought and experience that each juror contributes to the collective decision-making process.
Reflect for a moment on the essence and purpose of my expert testimony. I want the jury to believe what I tell them and to appreciate my respect for their process. Consider my simple three-point guideline, designed to ensure that my testimony is real, relevant, and resonant—allowing jurors to truly identify with, understand, and feel the impact of the evidence presented.
First, being real means presenting testimony in a way that jurors recognize as authentic and genuine. It's about humanizing the facts, avoiding jargon and complicated terms, and sharing stories that bring my opinions to life. When jurors see and hear the humanity in my testimony, they appreciate the reality of the situation.
Second, relevance is key. Jurors must be able to connect the dots between the evidence and their lives. They should feel that the testimony speaks to them personally, that it matters not just in the context of the courtroom, but in the wider scope of their experiences and beliefs.
Lastly, resonating with the jury is about creating an emotional connection. My testimony should be delivered in such a way that jurors don't just hear it; they feel it. It's the difference between understanding my testimony and being moved by it. When my testimony resonates, it remains with the jury long after I have left the witness stand, influencing them as they deliberate and decide.
I believe that testimony that embodies these three qualities bridges the gap between the abstract and the intimate, guiding jurors to a verdict that is as informed by the heart as it is by the mind. This is the goal of expert persuasion, where the confluence of being real, relevant, and resonant can lead to justice that is truly felt, deeply understood, and ultimately, human. As such, a futuristic jury of AI bots will never replace the process of a trial by peers.
Conclusions
Finally, in my day-to-day work with families, applying the principles of being real, relevant, and resonant acknowledges each family's unique experiences. I attempt to make complex concepts pertinent to their lives, ensuring my opinions are directly applicable to their situation. By resonating, I aim to connect on an emotional level, ensuring that my messages are not just heard but felt, fostering understanding and hopefully a lasting impact. This approach, I believe, helps build trust and facilitates effective communication, crucial in supporting families through challenges and promoting positive outcomes for parents and their children.
◆
