As much as we may not want to admit it, the courtroom is not immune to emotion or the human element. People have inherent preferences and perceptions, which we ask jurors to set aside when stepping into the courtroom to fulfill civic duties. However, as we’ve discussed before, people are unpredictable. Whether intentional or not, it is often unexpected human behavior that can take a case way off track or sway a jury in a different direction.
Take for example the case of Juror No. 6 in this Canadian drug conviction: Robert Johnston, the attorney for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (which handles drug crimes), started receiving personal notes from an anonymous juror just two days after the verdict. Here’s a high-level timeline of the correspondence:
June 20, 2015: Jury delivers a “Guilty” verdict.
June 22, 2015: Juror No. 6 sends a handwritten note to Mr. Johnston, which included her telephone number and the following statement: “I really wanted to thank you in person for choosing me to be part of the jury.” (Apparently there was more in the handwritten note, but that is all that’s disclosed.)
July 4, 2015: Juror No. 6 emails Johnston, writing: “I absolutely enjoyed you and this experience…When you said ‘thank you’ to us after the verdict was read and we were walking away, I wanted to say ‘you’re most welcome’ but honestly, I was so nervous and my stomach was in knots.”
July 7, 2015: Juror No. 6 again reaches out to Mr. Johnston in a final message: “You just crossed my mind so I thought I would say hi. Have a nice afternoon.”
As one might expect, the attorney for one of the convicted asked the judge to inquire about the “appearance of bias” with the jury before sentencing; however, the judge denied the request. There was no evidence to suggest Juror No. 6 reached out to Mr. Johnston before delivering the verdict, nor was there evidence to suggest the other 11 jurors were made aware of or impacted by Juror No. 6’s feelings.
What attracted Juror No. 6 to the prosecuting attorney? Was it his ‘charming good looks’, an accent, or was she moved by his passionate closing arguments? (I was not present at the case, so those are fictional suggestions!) While we will likely never know, it is important to note that personal appearance, body language, personality, and communication style all play a role for everyone in the courtroom, including expert witnesses.
A Cornell University study on attractiveness in the courtroom was reviewed in Psychology Today magazine. The authors of the study found that “more attractive defendants are less likely to be found guilty than less attractive ones” and, when monetary damages are involved, “more attractive plaintiffs tend to receive higher rewards.”
How and why does this happen? The authors, Justin Gunnell and Stephen Ceci, found that jurors either process information rationally or experientially: rational follows analysis, fact, and logic, and experiential follows “emotional and personal experience.”
The authors explain their findings further:
“Jurors who were more experiential gave an average of 22 months more jail time to those that they deemed unattractive—almost two years. This unequal treatment does appear to be mitigated by the seriousness of the alleged offense, though: In cases involving the most serious offenses, and with strong evidence, the attractiveness bias was less pronounced. The study also seems to indicate that more rational jurors—that is, those who tend to process information based on facts and logical arguments rather than emotion—are largely able to avoid the bias.”
While the Cornell study namely focused on jurors’ perceptions as they relate to defendants and sentencing, preferences and perceptions are applied to anyone and everyone in the courtroom: attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants, jurors, judges, court interpreters, and even expert witnesses. Keep this in mind when preparing for your next courtroom appearance.