Legal News

Do Jurors Understand the Burden of Proof?

By Brian Harris

I recently spoke at a seminar for public defenders about jury selection. One of the attendees made a comment during the presentation that she believed jurors don?t understand what ?beyond a reasonable doubt? means. She said she held this belief because she can?t understand why jurors send her clients to jail after hours of deliberating. If they have to deliberate that long, then they must have doubt.

I paused a moment, finding that perspective so interesting because, working primarily with civil cases, I hear jurors in mock trial deliberations, not only understanding what ?beyond a reasonable doubt? means, but applying that burden to civil cases.

This public defender?s comment made me think, though, about how I have seen folks apply the burden of proof in mock trial deliberations. I came to the conclusion that it is not about whether they understand it (which, for the most part, I believe they do), it is in how they apply that burden to comport with their concept of fair.

I have collected quite a bit of data on whether jurors feel that it is more important to make decisions that follow the judge?s rules or do what they believe is fair. Over the past three years, data collected from 476 jury-eligible adults across the country found that 61 percent of the jurors found that it was more important to do what the jury believes is fair over following the judge?s instructions. Yes, 61 percent.

So, why does this public defender lose her cases after people spend time deliberating? I think it is unlikely because they don?t understand the instruction. It is more likely that they either have to spend time convincing other jurors who said they do have doubt why they should not, or they were simply conscientious in going through the evidence before sending a person to jail.

Maybe, just maybe, it could also be that her jurors are focused on their concept of ?justice? for their community. Maybe, just maybe, even if they had a doubt that the accused committed the crime at issue, if they see that having this person out of the community serves the greater good, that, to them, is more important than following the judge?s instructions.

Justice, after all, is in the eye of the juror.

Melissa M. Gomez, Ph.D. is a jury consultant and owner of MMG Jury Consulting, LLC. She holds a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. Her experience includes work on more than 100 jury trials in Philadelphia and across the country, with a focus on the psychology of juror learning, behavior and decision-making. She has more than a decade of expertise in research design and methodology, as well as in behavioral and communication skills training.

This posting is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as advice specific to any matter. Each case is different and no strategy applies uniformly to all.

If you have any questions regarding jury psychology that you would like to see addressed in this blog, please contact Dr. Gomez at melissa@mmgjury.com or call 215-292-7956.

Melissa M. Gomez, Ph.D.
MMG Jury Consulting, LLC
www.mmgjury.com

Full post as published by The Legal Intelligencer Blog on September 14, 2010 (boomark / email).