What kind of jurors do lawyers want

A chemist and a nurse were also on the jury, and they might have been more able to understand and explain medical testimony and evidence, Tuerkheimer said. While the banker on the panel might approach the evidence and deliberations in a more methodical and analytical way. A key part of jury selection is trying to predict which potential jurors will emerge as leaders once the deliberations begin.

Who's going to take charge, and who's going to try to build consensus? I'd better make sure that they're not going to be against me, because it's a risk. While each case is different, there is one type of potential juror that most experts aim to avoid, Tuerkheimer says, and that's the candidate who's a little too eager to sit on a jury or goes to great lengths to hide that enthusiasm.

It's called a stealth juror, where somebody, they try to fly under the radar. You just have to listen to what they say very carefully. See if they seem like they have an agenda. This type of juror can usually be spotted because they complain at the onset of voir dire that they cannot participate in the jury system due to their busy schedules. They are quick to complain about how much time is being lost due to their forced participation at the courthouse and merely do not know what correct answers to give in order to release themselves from the obligation of jury duty.

On one hand, if a prospective juror is too busy to participate in the jury process, it might be that his occupation is of a highly professional status and thus he could develop into the leader of the jury.

Their personality does not demonstrate assertive skills whereby they exert themselves within a group. Followers are not used to exerting themselves on their job or outside activities and thus usually align themselves with one of the stronger members of the jury. Followers will usually speak when they are spoken to and are passive in nature.

When looking for followers, the attorney should keep in mind the exact duties of the individual's occupation as well as what hobbies, organization, and outside activities they participate in.

If their outside activities demonstrate that they merely follow orders from other people, this indicates that this prospective juror will be more likely to follow than to lead. The follower's nonverbal cues usually indicate a lack of assertiveness. Their walk and stance are such that there is a lack of confidence and assuredness in the way they carry themselves.

Sometimes followers will even look at the jury bench before they sit down in order to know exactly where they are sitting. It is rare to see a follower strike up or instigate conversations with other panel members. Fillers are those individuals who are deemed even more passive than the followers. Fillers have no true desire to be on a jury and rarely participate in any of the deliberation process. Fillers usually lack self esteem and are in occupations which call for little or no intellectual ability.

Fillers take on no active participation in the voir dire process and give the impression that they are not involved in any part of the judicial process. Fillers will often appear like they are sleeping or disinterested during the voir dire process. Fillers can often be good on a jury where the attorney knows that there are several strong jurors who will be sympathetic to his case. Fillers, more likely than not, will not have understood the trial and the issues, but will almost always vote with the majority of the other jurors.

Negotiators are those individuals who enjoy easing the tension of others during the deliberation process. Negotiators like to feel they are responsible for maintaining group cohesiveness.

Negotiators often possess high verbal skills, whereby they can analyze and verbalize what is going on during the deliberation process. Negotiators dislike for one or more members of the jury to be unhappy and will try to get other jurors to talk about their feelings and their thoughts on the verdict.

It is thought that individuals who possess leadership qualities may also possess qualities of a negotiator. Look for details in an individual's occupation and vocational activities to indicate if they possess this personality trait. Negotiators are difficult to detect by their body language, but often their questions during voir dire will indicate their ability to work with other members of the jury.

These are strong individuals who, no matter what pressure is put on them by other group members, will never change their position. It is extremely difficult for a trial lawyer to foretell who will be a hold-out juror.

The trial attorney should look for characteristics in the prospective juror's background which indicate a rebellious nature. Another way to determine whether or not a particular individual could become a hold-out is with pre-trial juror investigation whereby pictures of an individual's home, yard, fence, and other physical descriptions about the prospective juror's home indicate that they have an unusual nature about themselves.

Look for prospective jurors who maintain a barrier between them and the other members of the panel. The trial lawyer should also look for any other characteristics such as an unusual religion, occupation, or outside activities. Trial lawyers should also assess whether or not it is a type of case whereby they want a hold-out juror. For example, in a very difficult case where it is not likely for the trial lawyer to win, the best result hoped for might be a hung jury.

If the trial lawyer can assess who might be a hold-out juror, the trial lawyer should reinforce the idea that it is okay for a juror to hold out and stay by his convictions. The trial lawyer should obtain a commitment from the "unusual" juror and have her promise both lawyers that he will not change his mind if he feels strongly about his position.

Community surveys are questionnaires used to measure specific or general attitudes of the community. The survey will usually contain specific and general questions to assess attitude from individuals chosen at random in the community.

Most community surveys are comprised of both specific and general attitude questions. An example of a general attitude question would be: "How do you feel about police using force in a situation where the accused does not possess a weapon? A community survey is typically done by hiring a psychologist or other expert to telephone between and 1, registered voters and analyzing the data with sophisticated statistical formulas. The number of people surveyed will usually depend upon the finances of the case.

Community surveys can be used for various situations. For example, community surveys can be used to measure community attitudes when the party is asking for a change of venue. In that particular situation the expert psychologist will conduct the survey, analyze the results, and testify before the court as to whether or not a particular party can receive a fair trial in that jurisdiction.

Juror profiles can range from very unsophisticated to statistically scientific. A jury profile is a list of characteristics which trial lawyers deem to be favorable or unfavorable to their particular case. An example of an ideal juror in a medical malpractice case may be a black, elderly, widowed female who is unemployed.

This conclusion is drawn by statistically analyzing background characteristics of hundreds of individuals in the community and determining what their attitude was towards a particular case. As one can see, the danger of using juror profiles is that there may be no individual who fits the "ideal profile" on the jury.

The more sophisticated juror profile is one where a community survey assesses demographic background characteristics such as race, age, religion, education, socio-economic status, occupation, etc. Juror profiles should only be used in conjunction with other psychological methods and should never be the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not to strike or take a particular juror.

In court observation means that an expert psychologist or other trained professional is present in the courtroom to observe the nonverbal cues and any other meaningful information of the prospective juror. The expert will analyze not only nonverbal cues but the verbal content as well as all other behaviors of the prospective juror. The in-court observation is probably the most important part of social science techniques.

The in-court observer should record every identifiable behavior demonstrated by all prospective jurors. The most important thing to keep in mind with an in-court observer is that they analyze not only how the prospective juror reacts toward one attorney but analyze how a prospective juror reacts to both attorneys.

A prospective juror who acts entirely different with one attorney versus another will provide rich psychological information about that prospective juror's attitude.

If the attorney cannot afford to hire an expert to analyze the prospective juror's behavior in court, then the attorney should consider taking someone who he believes is insightful and inherently knowledgeable about human beings.

People who are good about making "first impressions" and are good at analyzing individuals will be able to provide helpful information to the trial team. A mock jury is generally defined as a group of five to twelve people who hear a "mock" presentation of both sides of the case and reach a verdict much like a real jury. The people who comprise a mock jury cannot have characteristics similar to the real jury since a mock jury usually occurs before the real jury in impanelled.

The central concept of mock jury is to reproduce the real trial on a "miniature scale" and allow the mock jury to act very much the same as a real jury. Jury Selection in Criminal Cases. Learn about the process of selecting a jury. Questioning Jurors When a case is called for trial, a randomly selected panel of potential jurors called a venire is seated in the courtroom.

Challenges to the Venire After they have completed questioning, the lawyers begin removing potential jurors from the venire by making challenges for cause and peremptory challenges.

Challenges for Cause Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Peremptory Challenges No reason is required for a lawyer to use a peremptory challenge to excuse a potential juror.

Striking the Jury In the process known as "striking a jury," the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. Talk to a Lawyer Start here to find criminal defense lawyers near you. Practice Area Please select Zip Code. How it Works Briefly tell us about your case Provide your contact information Choose attorneys to contact you. Legal Information.

Criminal Law Information. Proof and Defenses in Criminal Cases. Getting a Lawyer for your Criminal Case. Steps in a Criminal Defense Case. Arraignment: Your First Court Appearance. Plea Bargains in a Criminal Case.

Legal Elements of Common Crimes. The defense also has the option of not having the defendant testify. There is no burden upon the defendant to prove that they are innocent.

It is the government's responsibility to prove the defendant committed the crime as detailed in the indictment.

The fact that a defendant did not testify may not be considered by the jury as proof that the defendant committed the crime. The defense may also waive his case. If the defense does not put on any evidence, the jury cannot assume that the defendant is guilty simply because they did not put on a defense. The decision to put on a defense is solely up to the defendant and the defense attorney. However, the defense will usually present its own version of the case. Objections During direct or cross examination, either attorney can make an objection to a question or a piece of evidence to the judge.

For example, a prosecutor or defense attorney may object to the wide range of the direct examination because it is beyond the knowledge of the witness, the attorney may be arguing with the witness rather than asking questions, or the witness may be talking about things irrelevant to the case.

The judge decides the outcome of an objection, sometimes after allowing attorneys on both sides to comment before making a ruling. Closing arguments are the final opportunity for the prosecutor and the defense attorney to talk to the jury. These arguments allow both attorneys to summarize the testimony and evidence, and ask the jury to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty.