Thinking styles and your jury

More often than not, voir dire focuses on uncovering biases in jurors so that counsel can present their case to a jury that is willing to listen at a minimum. This is appropriate but leaves out an important consideration: thinking styles. Beyond the basic “visual or auditory” learning that has been addressed with using visual aids in the courtroom, how does each juror receive and process the information counsel gives them? How do they organize their thoughts?  Are they even capable of working in groups or are they better at making decisions alone?  Although voir dire is generally limited in scope, we don’t need to rely solely on voir dire to appeal to a wider audience at trial if we have a better understanding of the types of thinkers out there.

For the purposes of this article, I will focus on the three primary thinking styles and how they may affect how a juror receives information and applies that in the context of a small group setting. Later articles will address the other styles.

Executive style:

This type of thinker appreciates a clear set of goals and a plan for achieving those. This is the juror who responds to being walked through the verdict form and instructed, generally, what the jury’s tasks are. Someone with an executive style, if foreperson, is likely to stay task oriented and approach things in an orderly manner rather than randomly choosing points from trial to talk about.  In terms of trial, the executive style thinker needs organized presentations, well-positioned and pertinent witnesses, and reminders about what the exact questions are at trial.  We all know jurors can get sidetracked with issues that are not in question legally. Reminders such as, “The issue for the jury here is whether or not the manufacturer could have foreseen this application with the end user”, or “The 2 questions for the jury in this trial are: ____” are helpful in satiating this person’s need for clear goals.

Legislative style:

This style of thinker I describe as “testing”.  They like to brainstorm and contemplate many ways to accomplish their task. They push their ideas with others to see how they are received and like to give orders. In contrast to the executive style thinker, the legislative thinker wants to use his own ideas to solve a problem, and consequently would react differently to being told that they are obligated only to consider the information that was brought before them in this trial. The executive thinker would relish that kind of boundary; the legislative thinker would have a difficult time avoiding the use of extraneous or previously acquired knowledge or information in formulating decisions. The legislative juror is the type who wants to hear from everyone at trial, but makes his own decisions about whose testimony is the most important, which piece of evidence fits where and is a juror that has little difficulty filling in any gaps in the trial story. They feel free to talk about trial issues in random order and do not feel they need clear instructions on how to fill out the verdict form or approach any task.

Judicial style:

This is the thinker who analyzes and compares opposing points of view and facts. They are more critical about the “system” than the previous two styles. In a trial setting, this juror may criticize the questions a witness was asked versus the substantive testimony.  They may argue points such as jury nullification or persuade others that they do not have to “follow the law” to the letter. Whereas the executive style thinker appreciates the rules of the system, the judicial learner will be critical of and perhaps ignore them.

Any of these styles can be dangerous in terms of a juror, but this depends largely on how committed a juror is to these tendencies, how well-received their advances of these tendencies are on the panel and what, if any, mitigating personality types co-exist on the panel.

So how does counsel find these people?  A few key questions can help. Below is just a sample of some important questions to include in a voir dire or pre-trial questionnaires.

·         “I like situations in which my role or participation follows a clear plan.”

·         “I am careful that I solve problems with the appropriate method.”

·         “When making decisions, I rely on my own ideas.”

·         “I feel better about jobs where I can decide for myself how to do them.”

·         “I like to compare opposing points of view when making a decision.”

·         “I like tasks where I must evaluate the methods of others.”

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)