Grin and Bear it (US Juries)

As the lights in the British empire begin to fade over Hong Kong, and the lights in a basement court in the Royal Courts of Justice persistently refuse to fade I want to try to shed a my own light on American juries.
What have Vera Chubb, Martha Hite, John Candelaria, Ruth Meier, Mike Leeper, David Gilger, Diane Faircloth, Doug Carr, Roger Brown, Tonya Stedman, Jim Osgood and Fred Clarke in common?. As the news is two weeks old now, most people will have forgotten (if they ever knew) the names of the jurors in the trial of Timothy McVeigh. You may have forgotten his name too but you won't if I remind you that he is the Oklahoma bomber.
We know their names because, after they had pronounced their verdict, they immediately became famous for .... at least 24 hours.
In this country, anyone who so much as asks a juror what he had for lunch, is likely to be carted off to the Tower of London and fed to the ravens. But after the McVeigh trial was over, all twelve jurors appeared on national television in the USA to chat about what they were thinking and, no doubt, to say what they had to eat.
All this is vaguely interesting to bored tourists trying (usually without success) to find something worthwhile on American television. But it is the stuff of which ecstasy is made for jury consultants.
We do not have such creatures over here, but in any big jury trial in the USA they are now regarded as essential. They are employed to help in the selection of juries, and in monitoring their performance afterwards.
Juries have to fill in questionnaires giving details of their background, attitude towards police, experience of suing, and being sued. They are then examined by the lawyers, who hope to pick a winning team. The problem is that a winning team for one party is definitely a losing team for the other.
During jury selection, the one thing to avoid at all costs is the smiling juror. A smiling juror really worries the jury consultants. The longer he smiles the worse it gets. These jurors, I am told on good authority, continue to smile throughout the trial and then deliver a verdict against the client. And, damn it, they even carry on smiling after that.
Juries do not say a lot after they have been selected, so jury consultants have to work out what they are saying when they are not speaking.
Every gesture, every itch scratched, every shifting of the buttocks on a hard seat, is noted and interpreted. It is better to have the juror looking relaxed and facing you, than cross legged and looking the other way.
Some jury consultants even stage mock trials to help attorneys take a glimpse into the mind of the average juror, and to teach attorneys how not to send jurors to sleep.
Juries are used much more widely in the USA than they are here. Their use in personal injury cases ensures that victims receive compensation at a level that in this country is achieved only in libel verdicts.
It is of course well established under English law that those who lose limbs or are grossly disabled as a result of the fault of another should pull themselves together and be thankful for their £2500 (Compensation Recovery Unit free) damages, whilst if somebody should suggest for a moment that a politician is bonking his secretary that is worth a million for starters.
The upholders of these great principles of law are of course judges. What we need in this country therefore is Judge Consultants (or JCs as they will become known): skilled experts who will assist in the selection of the right judge, and having done so, will keep a close eye on him or her throughout the trial to ensure that the case is being presented in the best possible light.
JCs will soon learn to discern the judicial body language. "Proceed with your address if you must.....", "Mr Bailey is there any point to your line of questioning?" and "I have never seen such a badly pleaded case since I was being suckled by my wet nurse" are all indicators that the judge is not on your side, as are a pursing of lips, the fixing of the eyes firmly on the ceiling or loud and persistent sighs.
Sometimes technology gets in the way of these subtle forensic approaches, as happened this week deep in the bowels of the Law Courts where they keep those subterranean courts for the use of moles and people of a nervous disposition.
A plaintiff expert was trying to give some complex evidence and needed to use a slide projector.
"Ooo I don't know about that" said the court enquiry official, drawing breath noisily through her mouth. "We don't have anything like that."
The solicitors persevered, tracked down a projector, obtained permission for its use and set it up in the court. Everything worked nicely until:
"Can we turn the lights off?"
Long silence. The problem is that these courts do not have light switches. The only way of plunging the court into darkness is for everyone to stand motionless for 15 minutes. Then if a whisker is moved, the court is bathed in glorious light for a further 15 minutes.
JCs would have some difficulty in interpreting the mood of a judge who had to wait for 15 minutes only to be extinguished (in the nicest possible way).
The solution (eventually) was for the main fuses to be pulled, but the court electrician had to be on hand to put them back again at a moment's notice in case the court caught fire, or the judge wanted the advocates to see him looking bored.
In the meantime, those JCs who sit through slide shows in court might find that they see little of the face, except the smile. And a smiling judge should be avoided at all costs, because he will still smile as he dismisses your client's case, orders you personally to pay the costs, and for good measure sends you to the Tower.

First published in Solicitors Journal on 11 July 1997.