Psychodrama

I came across an interesting article about the use of a psychological technique called psychodrama during trial. Essentially the lawyer works to make himself more vulnerable in order to elicit an emotional connection with the jury. In my last post, I spoke about the use of humorous rhetoric to enhance the power of one's argument, but what about creating an emotional response? Are there limits to the use of humor or emotions? Is it OK to use personal stories of loss and tragedy during voir dire to elicit emotional reactions in the potential jury? To see who will cry? To see who remains stony cold? During my two days of jury duty, one of the criminal defense attorney's spent about 15 minutes leading us through a discussion about how different people make decisions. Do we use our minds? Did we think decisions should be logical or can we use our emotions to make decisions? Do we listen to others when making up our own minds? She was simultaneously trying to feel out the jury pool and trying to inform us of the way a jury should come to a decision. She wanted us to understand that a jury does not make a compromised decision (as is sometimes the case in other venues) but rather a unanimous decision.

The boundary between emotions and logic is an interesting question and I think I will give it some more thought in the coming months. The law requires logic so that we can have equal application. Emotions are too subjective to be used as legal standards, but emotions clearly have a place in the law. More to come. . .

Voir Dire, Part I

My lack of posting is not the result of being impaneled on a jury; rather, after loosing two days down at the county courthouse, I have been playing catch-up. I did however get to sit through voir dire (the process through which attorneys and judges choose a jury from a pool of individuals) for two trials, one a murder trial and the other a drug possession trial. More than being a distraction from law school, my two days were very educational. I learned a lot by watching how the attorneys handle the pool of potential jurors, and in addition, I learned a lot about the cross section of my community that was randomly pulled for jury duty. I will try and sum up my observations in the next couple of posts:

First, more people than you would think have been victims of a violent crime. 65 people were called for the first trial, a murder/ robbery case. Around 20 people were released right off the bat because of hardship. Most of those individuals either had trips planned during the next three weeks (or so they said) or were small business people/ commissioned salespeople whose livelihood would be greatly affected by missing three weeks of work. From the 45 or so who remained, at lease five had had a gun pointed to their head at some point in there life. When one juror was asked, she replied "which time. . .I have had a rough life." The attorneys were asking these questions because there was a gun involved in the case. The former cop sitting in front of me described multiple occasion of looking down a barrel, and one tall bearded fellow had been an environmental activist who pissed off some loggers. Several others relayed their experiences in private, but this list only included those involved in gun crimes. There were others who had been kidnapped, beaten, robbed, held for ransom, etc. I must have led a sheltered life. I understand that this supposedly random section of society did not include those who had already found their way out of jury duty, but I think more people than we normally think have been victims of crime.

more to come. . .

Hurry up and wait!

I might actually get to see the inside of a courtroom today. No, the bar has not yet decided to allow me to practice based simply on my brilliance. I have jury duty. So far, I have been assigned to a jury pool, but before the action got started, I was released for three hours while the lawyers went over our paperwork and made preliminary decisions. Because I listed my occupation as law student, I find it unlikely I will be placed on any jury during my next two days of duty. I probably could have written and requested to be released, but seeing as this might be the last chance ever to sit on a jury and considering I have rarely ever been in a courtroom, I thought it might be a good educational experience--I am getting a lot of my homework done.

If perchance I am put on a jury, I will not be blogging about my experience until it is over. I read an article a few months ago about a criminal case in New Jersey--I believe--that went all the way up to the state supreme court on a jury related appeal because one of the jury members had been blogging about his experience during the course of the trial. The supreme court ruled that his actions had not been material to the decision and had not influenced any of the other members of the jury, so they let the verdict stand. Personally, I do not want to take the risk. I am probably pushing the envelop right now by blogging from a coffee shop, while officially still on jury duty. Of course the bar has not admitted me yet, but when I have my JD and have passed the bar exam, I would hate to not get admitted because I committed a previous indiscretion or was the subject to a supreme court appeal. I am not a lawyer yet, but considering what I already know, I will probably be held to a higher standard if I were to come up before a bar ethics committee--something I hope never to face. With that said, I will post after this experience is over and leave you all with any other impressions I have, unless they are no different from my experience this morning: hurry up and wait*

*I borrowed this expression. Thanks! I hope this gives you credit without disrupting your anonymity.