Virtual jury research is a technique used by lawyers to prepare for trial.
For many decades, attorneys have employed jury consultants to conduct jury research to help prepare for trial. The goals of such research vary: to assess the case and to discover its primary juror-defined issues; to help plan the case presentation; to develop the trial theme that will resonate most strongly with jurors; and, of course, to determine with the maximum degree of probability the most likely trial outcome.
Jury research is similar to the test marketing of products that companies conduct before they introduce them commercially. Jury consultants utilize numerous tools and techniques to assist attorneys with this research. These include jury focus groups and jury simulations (mock trials) involving surrogate (mock) jurors; venue studies, including phone and other surveys to determine community attitudes regarding an upcoming trial; witness preparations; and more.
Jury research is useful not only for trials but also for litigation disputes of all types, including those with outcomes that will be determined through ADR (alternative dispute resolution methodologies such as arbitration, mediation, or negotiations).
Virtual jury research is based on the concept of synchronous conferencing, also known as computer-mediated communication. Like Internet Relay Chat (IRC), all communication between participants during a virtual jury research study take place in real time. Attorneys access the Internet from their own PCs to participate in the virtual jury research sessions. They are joined by virtual research jurors (mock jurors) who have been selected so that their individual profiles match key criteria that support the case study’s particular design objectives.
In addition to conventional jury research, attorneys in recent years have been able to conduct online jury focus group testing over the Internet. Online jury research, known as "virtual jury research", features the same type of empirically valid research data concerning juror decision-making that conventional jury research provides. One of the first people to develop this technology were trial consultants Adrienne LeFevre and Teresa Rosado. They formed OnlineVerdict.com and have since become nationally known for their technology and advances in online research.
For virtual jury research, the focus group "room" (or chatroom) where the virtual jurors, attorneys, and jury consultants interact is a special computer screen window that all can access. There, the research jurors are presented with specific questions designed to gauge their attitudes and concerns regarding the case being studied. They type in their responses to these questions, which are immediately viewable by all participants.
Through this carefully planned and conducted online jury research process, attorneys and jury consultants are able to spotlight the key trial issues the online research jurors consider most important; and to then determine with the maximum degree of available certainty how these issues should be presented during the upcoming trial to achieve courtroom success. Findings can be used to forecast jury verdicts; detect possible juror bias; evaluate demonstrative aids; plan trial strategy, and so on.
Virtual jury research provides identical benefits to standardized jury research, while featuring numerous additional advantages, including more economical costs. The primary benefit, by far, is quick case study results. A customary jury research session often takes weeks to organize and administer. But with virtual jury research which benefits from the availability online of literally millions of potential case study participants—research jurors can quickly be located and solicited to participate, which they can do so effortlessly via their home computers. As a result, online studies can be organized, conducted, concluded, and evaluated within a few hours. This quick turnaround can be invaluable for attorneys who must quickly strategize regarding sudden new cases that must quickly go to trial.
Like any other scientific study, the validity of jury research results is based on the quality of the scientific sample, in this case the actual research jurors who are being studied. For online jury research, this means that the individual characteristics of the virtual jurors who participate in the jury study should match as closely as possible with those of a hypothetical "ideal" juror for a particular case. In most jury research, these characteristics segment according to the following criteria: demographics, personality, attitudes, beliefs and life experience. Choosing research jurors on the basis of these individual characteristics is known as "stratified" sampling.
In standardized jury research, which draws on a pool of research jurors who are limited to a single venue, quickly locating and securing the services of jurors with such ideal characteristics can be a daunting if not impossible task. This is why standardized jury research often is conducted instead on the basis of "random" sampling (based on lists derived through voter registration, driver license applications, and so on); or through "representative" sampling (based only on demographic characteristics—age, ethnicity, sex, and so on). However, these much less refined methodologies do not present the same type of scientifically valid and meaningful research results that can be achieved through stratified sampling. But with the Internet, and its hundreds of millions of users worldwide, stratified sampling is not a problem; hence the value of virtual jury research in comparison to more standardized formats.
A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Juries developed in England during the Middle Ages and are a hallmark of the Anglo common law legal system. They are still commonly used today in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada , Australia, and other countries whose legal systems are descended from English and later British legal traditions.
Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) describes a not guilty verdict of a criminal trial's jury despite a defendant having clearly broken the law. Reasons may include beliefs that: the law itself is unjust, the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute and unqualified right to reach any verdict it chooses, although they are usually not told of this right in the process of a trial.
Voir dire is a legal phrase for a variety of procedures connected with jury trials. It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth. This term is also used informally to describe the practice of jury selection in certain jurisdictions.
The Runaway Jury is a legal thriller novel written by American author John Grisham. It was Grisham's seventh novel. The hardcover first edition was published by Doubleday Books in 1996 (ISBN 0-385-47294-3). Pearson Longman released the graded reader edition in 2001 (ISBN 0-582-43405-X). The novel was published again in 2003 to coincide with the release of Runaway Jury, a movie adaptation of the novel starring Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, John Cusack and Rachel Weisz. The third printing (ISBN 0-440-22147-1) bears a movie-themed cover, in place of the covers used on the first and second printings.
Together, legal psychology and forensic psychology form the field more generally recognized as "psychology and law". Following earlier efforts by psychologists to address legal issues, psychology and law became a field of study in the 1960s as part of an effort to enhance justice, though that originating concern has lessened over time. The multidisciplinary American Psychological Association's Division 41, the American Psychology-Law Society, is active with the goal of promoting the contributions of psychology to the understanding of law and legal systems through research, as well as providing education to psychologists in legal issues and providing education to legal personnel on psychological issues. Further, its mandate is to inform the psychological and legal communities and the public at large of current research, educational, and service in the area of psychology and law. There are similar societies in Britain and Europe.
In American and Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of voir dire. A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".
The CSI effect, also known as the CSI syndrome and the CSI infection, is any of several ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on crime television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation influences public perception. The term was first reported in a 2004 USA Today article describing the effect being made on trial jurors by television programs featuring forensic science. It most often refers to the belief that jurors have come to demand more forensic evidence in criminal trials, thereby raising the effective standard of proof for prosecutors. While this belief is widely held among American legal professionals, some studies have suggested that crime shows are unlikely to cause such an effect, although frequent CSI viewers may place a lower value on circumstantial evidence. As technology improves and becomes more prevalent throughout society, people may also develop higher expectations for the capabilities of forensic technology.
Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.
Jury or juror research is an umbrella term for the use of research methods in an attempt to gain some understanding of the juror experience in the courtroom and how jurors individually and collectively come to a determination about the guilt or otherwise of the accused.
Summary jury trial is an alternative dispute resolution technique, increasingly being used in civil disputes in the United States. In essence, a mock trial is held: a jury is selected and, in some cases, presented with the evidence that would be used at a real trial. The parties are required to attend the proceeding and hear the verdict that the jury brings in. After the verdict, the parties are required to once again attempt a settlement before going to a real trial.
Trial advocacy is the branch of knowledge concerned with making attorneys and other advocates more effective in trial proceedings. Trial advocacy is an essential trade skill for litigators and is taught in law schools and in continuing legal education programs. It may also be taught in primary, secondary, and undergraduate schools, usually as a mock trial elective.
Scientific jury selection, often abbreviated SJS, is the use of social science techniques and expertise to choose favorable juries during a criminal or civil trial. Scientific jury selection is used during the jury selection phase of the trial, during which lawyers have the opportunity to question jurors. It almost always entails an expert's assistance in the attorney's use of peremptory challenges—the right to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason—during jury selection. The practice is currently confined to the American legal system.
Richard C. Waites, J.D., Ph.D.,, a noted board certified trial attorney and social psychologist, is an internationally recognized expert in jury and courtroom decision maker research, a field he helped to develop and that he continues to advance.
Strike for cause is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.
A stealth juror or rogue juror is a person who, motivated by a hidden agenda in reference to a legal case, attempts to be seated on the jury and to influence the outcome. Legal scholars believe that lawyers can identify stealth jurors by paying close attention to non-verbal behavior connected with deception and identifying discrepancies between answers to oral voir dire and written questionnaires. A potential stealth juror may be hard to read and excessively reserved. The potential for stealth jurors to nullify death penalty statutes has prompted calls to eliminate the requirement of a unanimous verdict in jury trials. On the other hand, the argument has been raised that stealth jurors can serve as a defense against bad laws.
Jury selection in the United States is the choosing of members of grand juries and petit juries for the purpose of conducting trial by jury in the United States.
Amy Singer is a Florida trial consultant and research psychologist. Singer’s firm, Trial Consultants, Inc., which she founded in Miami in 1979, is one of the first trial consulting firms in the United States. Singer is an acknowledged authority in the field of litigation psychology, a discipline she helped pioneer. Her revolutionary approach, which consists of applying principles of psychology and using open-ended questions to elicit jurors’ value beliefs regarding key trial issues, changed the way that attorneys around the United States conduct voir dire. Largely through Singer’s influence, this became a juror de-selection, not selection, process.
Juror misconduct is when the law of the court is violated by a member of the jury while a court case is in progression or after it has reached a verdict.
Created in 1982, The American Society of Trial Consultants, Inc. is the only professional organization for litigation and trial consulting. It is the industry driver for standards in practical small group research, effective witness protection and preparation, and informed jury selection. The mission of the ASTC is to "[Make] the most of facts, law and presentation skill," and "...help litigators become better at persuading jurors and other fact-finders [to make] the system work in a way that is more meaningful, more reliable, and ultimately more fair."
The no-impeachment rule is a part of U.S. evidence law that generally prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations in an attempt to discredit a verdict. Arising in British common law, the rule has come to be implemented in Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 606(b) and in each state.