The Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhne trials, featuring, per the New
York Times “a leading politician, his extramarital affair, a speeding
ticket, his now-divorced wife and her decision to wreak her revenge” finally
ended mid-March with both Pryce and Huhne being sentenced to prison.
What’s relevant to lawyers on this side of the pond, are the
types of questions
asked by the jurors of the Judge in the first Pryce trial. They were so basic
as to astound His Honor, questions such as: “Can you define what is reasonable
doubt?” and “Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not
presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the
prosecution or defense?”
To assume that the jurors are stupid or incompetent is to
miss the lesson inherent in this trial: for whatever reason, the lawyers did not
present the case in such a way that the jurors had answers to these basic
questions.
You’d think that “reasonable doubt” was pretty easy to
understand. I suspect that what the jurors failed to grasp was what were the
“reasonable doubt” elements in the case. In other words, when you don’t, in
closing, tie your jury instructions to the facts as you’ve presented them,
you’re likely to have jurors who miss the connection. It’s up to you to connect
the dots for the jurors, not assume that they will automatically do so, just
because “reasonable doubt” isn’t exactly a rocket-science phrase.
As to the “Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason
that was not presented in court…” question, this is where focus groups come in
very handy. Focus groups, when properly recruited and conducted as opinion
gathering sessions, will tell you what are the reasons most likely to convince
jurors of your case, which many times lawyers, caught up as you are in the
legal aspects and minutiae of the testimony, may not be aware of.
