ILNews

Judging the jury

Dave Stafford
January 30, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Dennis Stolle is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, but his skills as a doctor of social psychology are more important in his niche as a jury consultant.

“It might be 60 to 70 percent psychology and a healthy dose of legal strategy as well,” said Stolle, who is president of the B&T subsidiary ThemeVision LLC in Indianapolis. The company is one of a handful in Indiana that specializes in jury consulting.

“We approach this very much from a psychological perspective in terms of biases potential jurors may be bringing to the table,” Stolle said. “Our goal is to go much deeper than simple demographics … what are the particular life experiences, attitudes, life opinions that might filter the evidence in a particular case, and how are we going to learn during voir dire who has those life experiences?”

stolle-dennis-15col.jpg Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner Dennis Stolle is also president of subsidiary ThemeVision LLC, which provides a range of services that includes jury consulting and advising attorneys during jury selection. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Stolle said reams of peer-reviewed literature provide baseline background information about the biases among particular groups of people that may be predictors of a juror’s decision-making. A Yale University study published this month, for instance, noted a male bias against overweight female check-fraud defendants in a mock case.

Nevertheless, Stolle said, “Nothing about being male or female is going to cause you to decide a certain way. … It’s going to be the life experiences and these deeply held views.”

Consultants say that as civil trials become scarcer, those likelier to go to trial are the “close” cases and high-stakes litigation in which consultants may play a role in researching and advising on jury selection. But consultants also can be helpful to determine whether a case should go to trial.

“Picking a jury is probably one of the more limited things a jury consultant does nowadays,” said Scott Weathers, an attorney who has handled both sides of insurance litigation and is president of trial consulting firm First Jury Inc. in Indianapolis. Weathers noted the decline in cases proceeding to trial but said consultants still have plenty of work conducting mock trials and preparing witnesses as significant cases progress toward settlement.

Jury consultants customarily will conduct mock trials using the jury pool in the jurisdiction where litigation has been filed. The expense varies. Weathers, for instance, said First Jury’s typical fee is in the range of $20,000 to $75,000 depending on such factors as locale, travel and complexity of the case.

Weathers said his company has conducted mock trials in 20 to 30 states for plaintiffs and defendants in civil matters. Market research firms are used in the target jurisdiction to select 10 men and 10 women who qualify as potential jurors where the case is filed. Mock jurors are paid for their participation and are provided meals as an actual jury would be.

The mock jurors answer jury questionnaires and hear both sides of the case as the consultants believe it would play out in court. Each juror provides an individual verdict along with rendering verdicts as a jury.

“When jurors start deliberating, it is a fascinating thing to watch,” Weathers said, noting the deliberations typically take place where jurors can be viewed through a two-way mirror. That’s where biases tend to emerge, and where consultants can gain a measure of the kind of life experiences that may shape a potential juror’s view of a case.

“It tells you what kind of people want to ring you up, so to speak, and what kind of people are more sympathetic to your case,” Weathers said.

Amy Pardieck is a trial consultant and president and founder of Bloomington-based Perceptual Litigation LLC. An expert in witness preparation, focus groups, mock trials and jury selection, she has worked as a consultant around the Midwest on environmental, product liability, medical malpractice, contract, patent and other litigation.

Pardieck said she puts little stock in demographic data as a predictor. “If it worked that way, it would make our jobs easier,” she said. “Human brains are far more complicated than that.”

With a background in clinical psychology, Pardieck said her training provides insight that some attorneys may lack.

“I can identify how people process information,” she said. For instance, some people’s information processing is procedure-based; others’ processing is rule-based. Some make snap judgments and some are contrarians. Among the things Pardieck looks for in potential jurors: “Which of those ways of processing information would be most advantageous for coming to a favorable result for our side?”

Attorney Mike Casati with Campbell Kyle Proffitt LLP in Carmel recently was part of a team representing a third-party defendant in a weeklong trial that involved home construction issues. Stolle served as a consultant.

“Dennis came in and was involved in doing the prep work on that jury selection, and I though he was a tremendous asset,” Casati said. “Not only

is he analyzing the jury questionnaires and pulling together some information with respect to the potential panel, but he also comes into the case with fresh eyes.”

Stolle noted a paradox exists during jury selection: Potential jurors think the process tends to drag on. “For trial counsel,” he said, “it seems like it’s happening very, very fast.” Multiple assessments are being made based on potential juror response.

“We also assess the demeanor of potential jurors during the questioning that occurs, and that’s probably the most revealing factor of all,” Stolle said.

Such observations may provide clues about who may be selected jury foreman or become thought leaders among the group, he said. Those people tend to have a willingness to speak, aren’t reticent, clearly articulate responses and are confident. Another important factor: They must be pleasant, Stolle said.

“You can predict with a good degree of certainty that the manner in which they respond to a question will determine whether they end up taking a leadership role,” he said.

As the number of jury trials declines, Weathers said jury consultants will continue to have importance for plaintiffs and defendants, particularly in mock trial situations.

Consultants can help make cases for settlement, and Weathers said he strives to play moderator when conducting mock jury trials. “The last thing I want to have happen is for them to think it’s put on by one side or the other,” Weathers said. Rather, he tells mock jurors, “People are trying to find out without going down to the courthouse what the case is worth, so please help us determine that.”

Mock trials also can be of benefit for clients who may think their case is worth more than it really is. If a client insists a case is worth millions, for instance, a mock trial verdict of a few hundred thousand dollars may be a reality check. “That recalcitrant client becomes a little more amenable to settling in the range they should settle,” Weathers said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Dennis Stolle is Great
    I worked with a group of attorneys in Marion County to revise the decades old jury questionnaire. Dennis went out of his way to help, and provided really valuable insight that we may never have considered. Really smart guy. Thanks for the piece to let other lawyers know!

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