How Jurors Think

You may have heard the phrase “information overload” before, but new research has shown it is a real biological phenomenon. It is that point when our ability to make a decision simply breaks down. Uncertain of how to process an abundance of information, we feel frustrated and anxious and either refuse to make a decision at all or we make a bad decision. 

Every time jurors make a decision regarding a legal case, they perceive the situation and the facts through the lens of their personal experiences. So, what happens when the situation involves an apology made by a defendant to the plaintiff? The answer is not completely straight-forward. Like so many things in life, it depends. 

Previously on “How Jurors Think,” we learned that jurors:

• Pay attention to everything that goes on in trial;
• Value an attorney’s organization and preparedness above all else;
• Need you to take the time to explain legal and complex terms in a way they can understand;
• Appreciate it when attorneys are passionate about their case but do not want you to be overly emotional or take upsets personally; and 
• Expect you to use modern technology in your presentations, but you better know how to use it well.  

Here are five more messages from jurors about what they value most in the trial attorneys.

How often have you wondered what others really think about you? For those of you who are trial attorneys, how often have you wondered what jurors think about you? 

Research has indicated that we are only about 50% right in knowing our own image and how we come across to others. We think we come across as confident but to someone else we are arrogant. Or, we do not realize how often we say “um” or notice that we use the word “so” at the beginning (or end) of far too many sentences (I’m personally guilty of that one). We all want to make good impressions and be liked, but it is rare to get truly honest feedback from others about how we are perceived.

The U.S. legal system is based on the idea that people make decisions, or judgments, in a systematic, controlled and reasoned way devoid of emotion. The assumption is that jurors and judges can stack up the evidence on a scale to determine whether or not the burden of proof has been met. Jury instructions routinely command jurors to leave their emotion and sympathy out of their decision making process.