'Shadow' jurors outside the box

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

They sit in the courtroom, observing the trial just as any person can do. But these aren’t ordinary court observers.

Instead, these individuals situated throughout the courtroom are hired to hear and see all the same evidence and arguments that those in the jury box are observing. Then, they’re surveyed about their thoughts, observations, and overall feelings on how the litigation is progressing and how they think the case might turn out.

“Shadow jurors” are surrogates for the real jury, offering the lawyers trying a case insight into what the actual jurors might be thinking and how the lawyers are doing. While the concept isn’t new and has been used in cases nationwide for years, it hasn’t been embraced widely by Indiana lawyers likely because of its cost and complexity. But one Indianapolis attorney who has used the litigation technique more than a dozen times in other states recently brought it to the medical malpractice case he was handling in St. Joseph County.

“I think shadow jurors, or court observers as we call them, are a valuable tool in any attorney’s arsenal,” said Norris Cunningham with Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman, the defense attorney on the med-mal case. “You are trying to find out if your theme is working and the information you’re trying to impart on jurors is getting across, or whether you have to try something new and different. You can glean some great information from them about where the actual jurors are at, and it allows you to adjust on the fly if need be.”

cunningham-norris-mug Cunningham

That high-stakes medical malpractice trial involved parents Hector and Brandi Lopez, who sued Interim Healthcare Inc. for $10 million on claims that the company was partly responsible for major brain injuries their 2-year-old son sustained under the care of a home health nurse in 2007. The nurse worked for a local franchise called Northern Indiana Health Care.

Cunningham hired New York-based jury consultant Trial Solutions Inc. to assist as the case headed for trial, and the firm hired six local residents from a pool of applicants to serve in a shadow juror role. Cunningham said applicants responded to an ad for an opinion research focus group and were paid from $100 to $200 per day.

Trial Solutions managed and interviewed the shadow jurors, and assisted with jury selection. Those serving as shadow jurors aren’t told which side they have been hired by, in order to provide an unbiased perspective, Cunningham said. Shadow jurors whose attitudes and insights resemble those serving in the actual jury are sought. They are held to the same standards as the real jury – forbidden from talking about the case with anyone, researching the case, or reading any media accounts.

Questions asked of shadow jurors in the St. Joseph case included: what they thought was the single most important fact or piece of information that particular day, how the witnesses responded on the stand, and whether a witness or evidence helped the plaintiff or defense more?

Cunningham said that each evening, shadow jurors are debriefed by the jury consultant and a report was forwarded to the attorney by the next morning, in time to allow for any litigation strategy change.

“It’s worked out very well and I’ve found it to be a very useful tool, but not one you want to bring out all the time,” Cunningham said, citing costs that can run as high as $12,000 to $14,000 depending on the jury consultant costs and length of trial. “This is definitely not a cheap way to go, and that’s probably part of reason you don’t see it a lot.”

He said the amount of exposure in a case can be a key factor in determining when to use shadow jurors. For example, using shadow jurors might not be the best solution if a case boils down to the credibility of a couple key witnesses rather than general perceptions about health care providers or issues, he said.

Before using shadow jurors in court, Cunningham notifies the judge and bailiff in order to make sure they are mindful of those faces that will be regularly appearing in their courtroom. Most don’t have any issue with the method, he said. In the St. Joseph County case, Cunningham said he notified the court about his shadow jury minutes before the jury was brought in for opening statements.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas Doehrman from Indianapolis firm Doehrman Chamberlain objected and said he hadn’t heard of that being done before, and he wanted assurance that there would be no interaction between the real jurors and the “shadows.” Cunningham told the court and opposing counsel that there’d be no cross-communication. St. Joseph Circuit Judge Michael Gotsch approved their presence, noting that anyone can attend a trial in open court, and allowed the shadow jurors to enter the courtroom at the same time as the selected jurors. While the trial was expected to last a week or more, the litigation ended after a handful of medical experts from the plaintiffs took the stand. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement.

Litigation support firm Theme Vision in Indianapolis has used the “relatively uncommon technique for Indiana” in federal court there. They say shadow jurors provide real-time feedback about the litigation progress, making it more useful than mock trials or focus groups, but that the case has to justify the time and expense, which can be high because of the shadow juror debriefing and attorney meetings about the findings.

Fort Wayne attorney John Feighner, president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, said the St. Joseph County case is the only one he is aware of that has used shadow jurors.

“The concept is rare because of the cost and complexity, and a lot of plaintiffs lawyers in longer high-damages cases will use other techniques like a mock trial or focus group,” he said. “They’ll try using anonymous jurors ahead of time to learn the themes and strengths and weaknesses in their case. But I suppose that as long as you get court approval and the guidelines preserving trial and evidence integrity remain, it can be a useful technique.”

Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana president Scott Kyrouac in Terre Haute said the use of shadow jurors is an extension of the practice by some attorneys of asking a relative, co-worker, or even an insurance representative to attend a trial and provide informal feedback.

“I am not sure that the procedure will become real popular among the civil defense bar,” he said. “A shadow jury could ultimately undermine the trial process and our faith in the judicial system if their results are consistently different than that of actual jury verdicts. As an advocate of the right to trial by jury, I’d advocate caution concerning any procedure that could ultimately be used to attack the credibility of our system of justice.”•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.