ILNews

Book review: 'Judge the Jury' looks at juror handwriting

Rodney Nordstrom
December 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

The trial consultant has many tools at his disposal for selecting desirable jurors. A consultant, with knowledge of human decision making, gives the attorney a distinct advantage in the courtroom. The more information counsel receives about a prospective juror, the better prepared he is to make intelligent and reliable decisions on who is best to sit in judgment of the case.

In addition to both psychological and sociological characteristics of a potential juror, body language, facial characteristics and handwriting samples are variables the consultant can consider. Graphoanalysis is just another of the many tools available to a trial attorney when selecting the right juror for the case, so claims Alice Weiser in her book Judge The Jury. Weiser has been a full-time graphoanalyst since 1978. In 1995, she was selected as International Graphoanalyst of the Year. According to her biography, she has assisted in more than 100 jury trials and has appeared on numerous radio and television programs.

Although not typically used by trial attorneys during voir dire, handwriting samples become an effective diagnostic tool when used via the juror questionnaire and analyzed by a trained examiner. Having more samples of a potential juror’s penmanship increases the confidence of whom to reject or select. Like body language, to a trained observer, a person’s penmanship can be used to tell if a person is a good listener or easily distracted, introverted or extroverted, emotional or intellectual, detail-oriented or looks at life as a big picture.

The success of any selection endeavor depends on a consultant’s breadth and depth of experiences. Although life experiences are the best predictor of verdict outcome, using stereotyping as a basis for jury selection is considerably less accurate. Like stereotyping, graphoanalysis is an over simplification of a very complex human dynamic and caution must be taken when using these techniques as a basis for selecting or de-selecting a juror.

Weiser’s paperback book consists of 10 chapters (220 pages) and retails for $19.95, but I got my copy from Amazon.com for about $6. Chapter 1 is an introduction to courtroom practice including definitions of common legal terms. It also offers a sample of specific voir dire questions for cases involving sexual harassment, wrongful termination, tax evasion and personal injury, and it identifies juror characteristics thought to be favorable to the prosecution, e.g., primarily authoritarians but also female, advanced education and a renter. Chapter 2 expands on the first chapter by challenging the reader’s understanding of commonly held beliefs via a short quiz, e.g., accident victims rarely award more than they themselves received in a settlement (false); bartenders have heard everything and generally can tell when someone is lying (true).

Chapter 3 is devoted to handwriting self-analysis. Specific use of margins, spacing and size are discussed. Chapter 4 is a detailed analysis of individual letter formation – crossing “t”s and dotting “i”s. Chapter 5 analyzes doodles, and Chapter 6 deals with face reading. Body language is discussed in Chapter 7, and Chapter 8 is more about face reading. Chapter 9 is birth order personality typing, and the last chapter has to do with lie detection relying on the interpretations of body language.

The downside to the book is that the author offers no supporting studies for her matter-of-fact suppositions and wide-sweeping generalizations. Graphoanalysis remains a pseudo-respectable tool among trial consultants ranking it slightly above astrology, palm reading and phrenology. Although serious questions remain about both validity and reliability, few of us would refuse to admit that a mean glare or angry crossed arms means nothing. Yes, I use graphoanalysis on complex cases where I have a lengthy questionnaire and even on occasion when I have contradictory feelings about which of two remaining jurors I should select. Weiser states that handwriting is something you can’t change no matter how you feel, adding, “The way a person signs his name tells you how they feel about themselves” (but little about the case).

The book is a quick read and the trial attorney will likely benefit from it. I particularly liked the use of quick and simple checklists, and sample voir dire questions such as “What section of the newspaper do you like to read first?” If they answer “front page” they can be described as wanting quick summaries of facts, they rarely investigate the facts and are worriers. If they pick the “horoscope” section, they have an external locus of control. Another strength is the checklist for juror suggestibility. This checklist involves certain juror behaviors indicating when a particular juror is “connecting with you.”

Although the topic of graphoanalysis has relevancy to jury selection, it is ironic that the most interesting aspects of this book are unrelated to this topic. The jury is still out when it comes to assessing the strategic advantage of graphoanalysis as a tool for selecting jurors; but don’t you want to give your client every possible advantage? Graphoanalysis has not been fully embraced by all trial consultants, yet remains an intriguing topic needing further empirical research and evaluation.•

__________

Rodney Nordstrom, Ph.D., J.D.
is a trial consultant with his company Litigation Simulation Services located in Peoria, Ill. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT