You Already Won (or Lost) the Case at Jury Selection

🎙️ 

Episode 2: The Art of Jury Selection – Winning Before the Trial Starts

In this episode of Trial and Error, Donte Mills breaks down one of the most critical — and often misunderstood — parts of any trial: jury selection.

Before a single witness is called or evidence is introduced, the outcome of your case can already be taking shape. The jury you pick can make or break everything.

Donte takes you inside the courtroom and pulls back the curtain on:

• How attorneys strategically select jurors
• The psychology behind who stays and who gets struck
• What questions actually matter during voir dire
• Common mistakes lawyers make that cost them cases
• Real-world insights from high-stakes trials

Whether you’re a lawyer, law student, or just someone interested in how verdicts are really decided, this episode gives you a front-row seat to the chess match happening before trial even begins.

Because in trial law… you don’t just argue the case — you pick the audience.

👍 Like | 💬 Comment | 🔔 Subscribe

Drop a comment: What’s a mistake that taught you the biggest lesson?

New episodes every week breaking down:

• Lawsuits & legal strategy
• Business & negotiation tactics
• Real-life decision making

Trial and Error with Donte Mills

Turn experience into advantage.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Top quiz. Most juries decide cases when. Some people say after the evidence comes in, some people say after during summations. There's been many polls. And I'll tell you that most jurors decide cases after jury selection. It's bizarre, but it's true. That's how important jury selection is and advocacy is. A lot of times we want to wait, I guess, to that shining moment, that magic moment in the trial, or summation where we can bring it all together. There's a lot of jurors, I mean, there's a lot of lawyers who think summation is the most important part of the trial. I can't wait to that's my favorite part. You know, I get up there and I talk and I convince and you know it sounds good, and the lightning strikes in the background and and all of that, but by then the jury already knows which way they're gonna go. Now, don't get me wrong, they're instructed by the judge to keep their mind open. And I think most jurors try to intentionally, they try to keep their mind open, but we're humans. So as we hear information, we process it. And yes, there could be an avenue where someone changes their mind. I think that happens throughout the case, but I think most jurors just determine what side they're on after jury selection. That's what the polls show, and that's what I've experienced, and that's what I believe. Welcome to trial and error. I remember one case that I was on. We did jury selection, and this actually happens often. You you go to jury selection because you think a case is going to go to trial. Um, you know, you've had the opportunity throughout, and these cases take a long time, whether it's a criminal case or a civil case, you know, it takes time to get to the trial because everybody has to get the information beforehand. And during that information gathering process, you have conversations with the other side. I mean, there's always a conversation about you know what would it take to resolve this, or or what are you guys uh willing to do to resolve this. I think that makes sense, but I don't think I don't think the court can handle, I know the court can't handle every single case going to trial. It's just it would take years and yeah, it already takes years once you get on the trial calendar a lot of times to have a trial, um, just because you need judges available, you need jurors available. But the court can't handle every case going to trial. Most cases settle, 99% of cases settle. Uh, the only ones that don't settle are where there's a dispute. Generally, the biggest dispute where a case doesn't settle is on liability, how the accident happened. If one side is just adamant that you know it wasn't their fault, and the other side is adamant that it was their fault, it's hard to settle because the numbers are gonna be way off. Somebody's gonna be saying, Why should I pay you? I didn't do anything wrong, um, in a civil case. And the other side is gonna be saying, Well, you were absolutely wrong, and you should pay me full value of what this injury is worth. Um, so in that particular situation, uh, it's very unlikely the case is gonna settle because the side who didn't think they did anything wrong, if they're being sued, they're gonna say, I'm not paying full value for this case because I don't think you know I did anything wrong. I think the jury's gonna be on my side, so I would never pay that. And the other side is not gonna take a steep discount uh because they think that they would win, and they're right. And those are the types of cases that go to trial, the ones that you know provide an out for both parties. Um, so during that process, when you're information gathering, that when you're information gathering, that conversation happens about settlement. Uh, and most times it works, sometimes it doesn't, and when it doesn't, you go to trial. First thing you go to trial after you're assigned a trial judge is you pick a jury, and you go into the jury with an understanding that there's going to be things they hear that conflict with each other. Because if it wasn't, right, the case was straightforward and everybody was just saying the same thing, the case would have been resolved. So, by essence, if a case is going to trial, there's going to be conflicting testimony and conflicting evidence. So, when you go to pick a jury, you have to understand that and you have to make it clear that you are the authority in that room. Um, you are the one uh with the credible story that they should believe. That's the job of the attorney. It makes it easier when you believe in the case yourself, and I have the luxury, you know, at this point in my career, I take cases that I believe in. Um you know, and I think that makes a difference. I think beforehand I had to believe it. You know, I mean even if I took a case or was assigned a case for say when I was working at a firm, um I made sure if I'm taking that case to trial, there's enough there for me to believe in it. Uh and I and I made it stink if it wasn't, um, or did the right thing, which I think the right thing in that situation is to settle the case. I don't think there's anything wrong with settling a case that you don't believe in. I think that's what should happen. But if I'm taking a case to trial, it's because I believe in that case, because I know that's the only way that I can be convincing, is if I do. Um, so I'm not taking a case to trial that I I don't see um on the right side, or I don't see an avenue where um I can show that my client was right. Um, so when you go into jury selection, uh that's the moment, not summation. Uh summation is important to wrap things up, but jury selection is the moment where you want to walk in there and show them who you are. Again, these themes because they're the two most common things or themes uh for trial advocacy are gonna come up every single episode. Control the narrative and being yourself. You can't really start controlling the narrative in jury selection because by law you're not supposed to talk about the facts of the case. Uh in criminal cases, the judge generally sits in the room when you're picking a jury. Civil cases, most times the judge doesn't. There's no judge in that room, it's just the attorneys and the jurors. So you're not supposed to talk about the facts of the case because there'd be some there could be some facts that I don't think should come in, and if the other side talks about them, there's nobody there to kind of gatekeep. Uh there's some things that I may want to talk about if I'm talking about the facts of the case. I may want to talk about you know a witness or their testimony or something like that, and the other side you know was planning to object to that, uh coming in at all, and and there's no judge there to say whether or not that can come in or not. So in jury selection, you're instructed not to talk about the facts of the case. It's more about the theory of law. Are you open to the idea that um you know someone should be held responsible if they cause an accident? That's much different than saying my client had the green light, and this person came through the intersection and T-boned them. And you know, if I show you that, will you agree with me? Now, you know, you can't go that far. You have to talk more the theory of law. Are you open to the idea? Is something that's a phrase that I use a lot because I think it frames it enough for the jury to get them thinking. And what I'm looking for in jury selection is someone who uh is not convinced that plaintiffs, because in in civil cases I'm I'm generally the plaintiff, are all full of BS and nonsense. That's truly what I'm looking for when I pick a jury. Anything else I think I can deal with. You know, if a juror comes in and says, I think all cases are nonsense, right? I was sued before and that was a nonsense case, so now I think all cases are nonsense, that's difficult for me to come back from. And I don't want to create a situation where I'm walking into a case behind the eight ball that's tough to come back from, you know, and there's no reason to I guess challenge yourself that way. Let me just pick a jury who hates me so I can see if if I can change their mind. There's no reason to do that. So when you walk into jury selection, understanding that by the end of that process, they're going to be leaning one way or the other, whether they appreciate that or not, whether they're fully processing that or not. Um, they just are. They're going to come out of jury selection saying, This lawyer, I relate to them more. You know, I I think they're um more direct, more believable. We are adversaries, right? It's two attorneys in there, maybe more attorneys, but at least two sides will say that. And they're both coming from different directions. Human nature is going to make you lean as you listen to people speak. You're gonna say the way they're talking, uh, you know, I I I I can relate to that, I I I can trust that, I believe that. The way this other person is talking, it doesn't seem as prepared, it doesn't seem like they're ready. So I they're gonna have to work hard to get me there. I don't think there's anything wrong with that because I think it's human nature. As much as we want to say, you know, we want people coming out of the jury room fair and just balanced, which is true. I do want that. I just don't know how reasonable that request is. I know coming out of that jury room, some people are going to be yay, some people are gonna be nay, but you want people that are open-minded at least to having their mind changed or not solidified in their position, so that no matter what you say, you can't convince them. I don't think that's fair to the process. I'll tell you this this is the only country in the world where juries decide civil cases, like personal injury cases, things like that, as a matter of right. A lot of cases, there's a lot of countries that where you have the right to a jury in criminal cases. In the United States, you have the right to a jury not only in criminal cases, but in civil cases. Uh and I think that's important. I think it's important because we want the people in our community telling us what's right or wrong. I mean, judges are people too, if you think about it. Uh you know, they are. Um and people make mistakes. So if you have one person, one judge that just sits, say, on the bench, here's criminal all civil, here's all civil cases and makes decisions. If that judge wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, it could be trouble for one party that really has nothing to do with their case. If that judge determines or develops a routine of how they listen and how they take in cases, there can be one case that sounds similar to that path, but it's different. But the judge, because that judge is conditioned, may have a difficult time accepting that that nuance. So I don't think it would be a good idea if we had judges just decide all civil cases. So the alternative to that is juries. And we bring people in from our community because we want them telling us what's right and what's wrong. I think the purest form of law is when you're trying a case in front of a jury because you're going to have random people. This is random. It's over. Jury rooms are it's pretty interesting because it really varies what like jurisdiction you in, you're in. Um, and you can be state to state, of course, it varies like crazy. Um, but you could be city to city or one city, and then you go one county over, and the jury pool is completely different. New York, my main practice area, is it's an extreme example of that, and it's so funny because you can kind of you get a feel for who people are in their environment and where they live. A Manhattan jury is completely different than a Brooklyn jury. A Brooklyn jury is absolutely different than a Staten Island jury. A Staten Island jury is way different than a Bronx jury. A Bronx jury, I mean, you can't even just they're so much different than a Suffolk County jury or a Nassau County jury. Um it's interesting how people in one community develop this kind of community thought. Well, there's nuances in between, of course, but you you can get a feel for where you are by who shows up in the jury pool, and it gives you a glimpse of the thought process of that area. There's gonna be some who, you know, just working class areas where they're gonna kind of generally side for the workers or the people that, you know, if it's a worker that's injured, you know, they're gonna side for them. There's some areas that are more, you know, just more focused on, you know, say homeowners, where if there's a trip and fall case, they're gonna side or or initially be on the side of the home owner or the premise owner, uh, and and really make you say, okay, did this premise owner do something wrong, or should this person have been watching where they were going? Right? Um, and I think that it's tied to who they are as people, the people they're around. You know, if you're in a community where everybody owns their own home, they're gonna be protective of homeowners. That's just natural. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Uh, but I think it's our job as attorneys to understand that dynamic and be able to go into a situation and say, I understand this jury pool, I understand who I'm in front of, and I understand how I have to present to them. Because if you have a trip and fall case where somebody tripped and fall fell on the property, and you're in a room full of homeowners, and you go in there saying, you know, you guys understand that these that these homeowners aren't taking care of their property, it's causing everybody to fall. I say, wait, what are you talking about? I take care of my property, my neighbor's property is pretty good. I know this one house, but that's a you know, there's a story behind that. They're gonna get into that defensive mold where it's gonna make your job more difficult. So it may behoove you to, if you know that, to come in and say, Listen, I'm not saying that you're a bad person if you have a dangerous condition that's developed on your sidewall. There could be a reason why you didn't fix it, but it doesn't change the fact that the law is the law. So I'm gonna ask you as a juror, if I show you that an incident occurred on a property. Generally, I'm not talking about the facts of this case, but if I show you that something occurred, are you open to the idea of holding someone responsible because if the law says they're responsible for that property? That's a different framing. Because you're paying attention to the people that you're in front of and you're in tune with what their beliefs may be. That allows you to leave out of that jury room ahead in that case. Because the jury isn't turned off because you just made all homeowners sound like the devil, because they're not. Even if a property was mismanaged or in a hazardous condition, you know, there could be a reason for it. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it also doesn't mean you should get away with it, or you get like a free accident where you don't fix something that should have been fixed, and you're and somebody falls, and you're like, Well, nobody ever fell before, so it must not be that bad. No, there's still rules that must be followed, but it's up to the attorney to frame it in the right way so that they leave out of that room winning. I there was an example, I was on trial, um, and again, you can't talk about the facts of the case, but we went through jury selection. After jury selection, the trial settled. That happens often too, right? Because people's feed are to the fire. Sometimes there is a dispute. Uh people gear up for trial, they get ready, and then you pick a jury, and they may see the jury and see, all right, this jury may not be with me. Let me see if I can get out of this, and they settle the case. Um, that happens often, you know. But and and I I feel bad sometimes because you go through jury selection, you convince the jury that you know they're doing their civic duty and the right thing by being a part of this process, and then all of a sudden their opportunity is taken away because the case settles. But it does happen often. But I was on trial, and um I was went through jury selection. We come out of jury selection, and the case the judge swears the jury in. After that, we take a recess so that we can get ready for uh the jury charge and opening statements. The defendant offers me what I was looking for. I knew jury selection went well. Obviously, the defense attorney knew jury selection went well. Um, for me. So we settle the case, and you can't talk to a jury during jury selection, you can't talk to them, you know, outside, you know, unless both attorneys are together, but just that casual conversation you're just not supposed to have. But once the case is over, so if a case settles or they give the verdict, you can talk to the people on the jury. And I used to do that a lot when I was a younger attorney because I wanted to understand how I presented to people. I knew that this was my craft, I was gonna be doing it for a long time. If I'm new to it, it's my responsibility to develop it. And and I thought the way to do that, and I think all young attorneys should take the time to do this. One if you pick a jury, if you try a case, when that case is over, track down those jury members. Uh, most times, and I'm not saying stalk them, uh, but you know, after the case is over, they leave the courtroom, don't linger closing, you know, picking things up and packing up your stuff. Run out, stand outside. So when they come out, you can say, Listen, do you mind? You don't have to, but do you mind just giving me your opinion on you know uh me as as counsel? Did I present well? Uh, what do you think my best, you know, uh components of my presentation were? What do you think my worst? You want to hear that from people who are listening to you because you know that feedback can be vital, important, and can really change something. There were things early on that I did that kept coming up. Uh, where jurors say, Well, I didn't like you when you did this. And the first time I'm like, Oh, maybe it's a one-off. You know, you never want to believe uh, I guess some things said about you. But then that second and third time, I'm like, all right, clearly this is something I have to fix. And I was able to do that because I spoke to those jurors. So that's important to um speak to those jurors. But um, so after this case, when we picked the jury, we went in, no evidence was presented, but the case settled right away after jury selection. I go into the hall, and a jury member is there, and I'll never forget this. She says, Um, I don't really understand what happened, but your client's getting money, right? Uh, I took it as a compliment because that that juror wanted to make sure she thought the right thing was my client getting money, um, despite the fact that she hadn't heard any facts of the case. Um, to me, that showed that I did a good job of controlling the narrative, even though we didn't know. Um, the jury didn't know exactly what the case was about. Uh that shows that I presented the case in an open way that led them to believe that there was something here. And if that and if the case was over, then the hope was the something that was here manifested in a way that you know my client received something. So I can tell you with absolute certainty and experience that juries lean oftentimes. I don't think they're intentionally trying to do anything wrong, but I think they lean oftentimes when coming out of jury selection, and that shows you how important the jury selection is. Um I talked to the jury about the importance of bringing their opinion to the case because that is truly how you carve away at a lot of the nonsense. Again, going back to if you're at trial, that means the jury is gonna hear two different things. A doctor, one two doctors may come in, and one may say, This injury is significant and give those reasons, and another doctor may come in and say, Well, this injury isn't that significant and give their reasons. And a jury is gonna have to decide which one makes more sense. Most of the things that they're gonna use throughout the process, and I ask this question every jury selection. You know, I say, What do you think is gonna be your most useful tool in this process? Because I hear people come and they say, you know, I'm not a lawyer, I've never been involved in the legal system and being on a jury, I understand how important this is. Especially after I tell them that to my client, this is the most important case in the world because it impacts their life. And I have jurors that say to me, Well, I'm not qualified to do this. I don't have a background in the law. I don't know. I've never participated in this process. I don't know what's supposed to happen, what's not supposed to happen. And I say, Well, what do you think the biggest tool that you're going to use in this process is? Two words. Generally, they get it most times on the first guess, a lot of times a second or third guess. The biggest tool you're going to use in this process. Common sense. Common sense. We talk about it, but we've talked about it before, where our job isn't to overwhelm a jury with legal leads. Our job is to explain the case to them in a way that it just makes sense. If you're talking about the way an accident happened or anything else, you're explaining this in a way that they get it. Like, yeah, they shouldn't have done this. He should have taken better care of their property, and this accident wouldn't happen. Like it makes sense. I'm not trying to trick anybody into giving me a verdict. I'm trying to make it as plain as possible. It's almost the opposite. I'm not trying to confuse them and just overwhelm them with legal terms and medical terms and say, like, I don't think I think that's ridiculous. If I'm expecting a group of people who don't have legal experience to come and give me an important decision, I want to make it as simple as plain as possible for them. So there's no dispute. And that starts in jury selection. So I'm not going in there league using legal terms. I'm saying, listen, are you open to the idea that if I show you somebody did something they're not supposed to do, are you open to holding them responsible? That's a simple yes or no. If I show you that, you know, if I tell you that my client was injured, and they would prefer, trust me, that if you decide this defendant is responsible for their injuries, that you take away their pain, everything they went through as a result of this accident, that would be their preference. That if you decide that there was some way for you, if you decided the defendant caused this accident, that the penalty or response for them causing the accident is you get to take away everything that my client experienced as a result of this accident. That would be the preference. And I mean that because every client, if I could say, I assure you, I've had this club conversation with my clients, and I assure you, if they had the opportunity, if you're talking when you're speaking, I'm talking about serious injury cases, these injury, any injury case, uh, because the bigger your injury, obviously, the more your valuable your case is, but it's only a valuable case, a big money case, if you have a significant injury. So if I go to my client and say, Listen, the options are if I win your case, you can get your arm back, or you can get money. Most of them, 99.9% will say, take this injury away. Give me back my life the second before this accident happened. And that's what I say to the jury. I say, listen, if if you decide this defendant was responsible and you can take my client back to the second before this accident happened, that would be the preference. But it's impossible. Whether your belief is in God and that's just the way God made us, or whatever your belief is, it's impossible for us to go back in time and take away everything they experienced as a result of this accident. So at the end of this case, I'm going to come to you, I'm gonna ask you for money. Monetary compensation. And I'm gonna ask for that because that's what our system provides for. There is no other alternative. That's the only way we can hold somebody responsible. If someone causes an accident, we can't take away what happened as a result of that. We also can't just say, Oh, okay, we've decided you did something wrong and caused someone to be injured. Um, so just don't do it again. Good luck. That wouldn't be fair either. Because you have someone that's been impacted and caused to be hurt by something they had no control over, by something that was done to them. The only alternative or the only option is monetary compensation. Now, most of the time, that's coming from the insurance company. Um, you know, I I'm not in a position, I don't sue people. I I I just don't believe, I do believe accidents happen. I do believe you should be held responsible if you cause somebody else to get hurt. But I'm not, I don't believe that like you should lose your house because you got into a car accident because you, you know, because you hit someone with your car. If it wasn't, you know, it's not intentional most of the time, it's an accident. Accidents happen, but that's what you have insurance for. So insurance pays for most of these, you know, the results that you hear, the insurance company is responsible because that's what you have insurance for. You have home insurance that covers somebody falls on your property, you have car insurance if you get into an accident. Uh I'm just not of the belief that I I just wouldn't go after somebody personally and say, you got into this car accident, you know, you caused an accident, um, I'm gonna go on top of your insurance and try and take your house from you, um, or or or empty your bank accounts. I I just I I have a tough, I would have a tough time with that. I just don't do that. Um, so most of the time we talk about insurance policies, um, but I do believe that's how you compensate someone for something that was done to them, and that's what I explained to the jury. So at the end of this case, if you decide that the defense defendant was responsible, I'm gonna ask you to compensate my client with money. And I use the term fair and reasonable a lot in jury selection, fair and reasonable. And I say you're gonna hear me say that a lot because that's what we're gonna ask for, but I'm gonna show you why fair and reasonable equals the number I'm asking for. And a lot of the cases I deal with are bigger number cases. So I'm gonna I I I tell them I'm gonna ask you for a big number. But I'm gonna show you why that big number is fair and reasonable. Just because you hear a large number, a million-dollar number, ten million dollar, whatever it is, doesn't mean it's successive. It could match what happened here. My job is to show you what happened here, show you the impact of this accident, show you who's responsible for this accident and the impact, and then match that to a fair and reasonable number. But I don't want anybody to be fooled to think large doesn't equal fair and reasonable because the impact could be large. Just like naturally, it doesn't mean you know, like sometimes a case doesn't have a lot of value. Maybe there's not a surgery, maybe, you know, maybe they were able to recover and there's no permanent damage, that means fair and reasonable would be a much lower number. Then in that situation, I don't think the jury's wrong or would be wrong for giving a lower number if it matches what's fair and reasonable. So in jury selection, I'm explaining to them that I'm going to show you what the impact of this accident was. And if I show you that it's a large impact, I expect your number to be large, it has to be. Because you have to fairly and reasonably compensate my client for what they experienced if you determine that the defendant was responsible for that. And if you don't do that, it's wrong. Because our system requires it. We don't have this system where you kind of you know it's meet at the clock tower at high noon to solve your disputes. It doesn't work. We have a system where you go to court and you say, This is what happened to me. Um, this person caused it, and I deserve and I'm entitled to fair and just compensation. It's the only system we have. Um and I also mentioned this because I strongly believe it. Those nonsense cases, they piss me off. They make my job much harder. The case that all everybody always talks about, the McDonald's case, all it's ridiculous cases that happen. You know, I remember hearing about a McDonald's case where somebody spilled coffee and they got millions of dollars. Well, one, that's wrong. It didn't happen that way. There's appeals, and there's a whole process that happens where that result was never paid out. Um, and two, yes, you may hear from time to time cases that don't make sense to you. Um, it could be because we don't know the full story, it could be because you know it just was wrong, it was decided wrong, and it's an outlier case, but it's just that. Juries hear cases all day, every day, in courthouses all across America, and every once in a while, every couple years or something, you hear one case with an exaggerated result, and that translates to people thinking all cases are nonsense. I don't think that really makes much sense, but it makes my job harder because when juries come in, the only cases that stick out in their mind, because that's the only case you hear about, you don't hear about a hundred cases can happen, you know, in in a county, let's say a week. 99% of those cases are routine, they it's fair and reasonable that happens, you will never hear about it. But one case is extreme, one way or the other, that's the one you're going to hear about. So you can't let that one case form your entire opinion about the legal process. That's what I have to explain to the jury. That's what I want people to understand. The cases that make the news are outlier cases. Yes, more than likely it's gonna be a ridiculous case because otherwise, why would the news be talking about it? It would just be like every other case that happens all the time in the courthouse. Nothing to see here. I truly believe juries get it right 99.9% of the time. And it goes back to what we were talking about because it's random people in a room, sometimes 12, sometimes 6, sometimes 8, you know, alternates that you have, but it's random people in a room with different backgrounds, different experiences, that are hearing the same testimony at the same time, but taking it in in a different way. So you have the person that's a professor that may be listening and focused in on certain things. You have someone who is a uh a skilled laborer who is very technical and maybe looking at different technical aspects of it. You have a teacher who is going to be empathetic and looking at um just just different components to it, how it affects people. You have all of these people that are random and hearing it, and they get into that room at the end of the case, and they say, Well, did you hear when the person said this? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that didn't make sense to me because I know that this situation, you know, this here's what happens. And they say, you know what, you're right. So we we shouldn't consider that, or we should consider that. And that process is what chops away at all of the nonsense. That's why juries generally get it right because you have these random people that are not involved with the law, they're just trying to make sure fairness happens. And I think most of the time it most of the time it does. That's why I really believe in our jury system. I no system is perfect. No system. Um, there's gonna be things that slip through the cracks, there's gonna be times where a jury panel is just turned off by one thing or another, but no system, no system is perfect. But I think generally and most of the time, these juries really do get it right. Um but we gotta start with them understanding that. You start with the jury believing that in the importance of what they do. I tell them all the time, I say, listen, nobody gets a jury slip in the mail and pops open a bottle of champagne. That's just not how it happens. Doesn't happen. Yeah, we got picked with jury duty. Let's party. It doesn't happen. But when they get there and they start to hear it, I assure you they get into it. I I advise everybody. I mean, you can't try to get on the jury, right? I mean, you can not try to talk yourself off, which happens a lot. I don't heard every every excuse in the book. I mean, I I've had jurors that say, Oh, I have to what you know, I have to do this, and you say, Well, okay, that's not an excuse to I also have like okay, that's not oh I also have you know I'll talk to the judge, you come back, the judge, well, did you tell the judge about like listen? If if you don't want to be here that bad, I don't want you I give it, you win. Because I don't want you to punish someone because you don't want to be here. I don't think that would be fair for either side. Um, so I generally don't uh if I see somebody trying to talk themselves off the jury, I let I let them have it. You got it. I'll ask them, do you think that this just really isn't for you? I'm not gonna try to convince you to be here because I want you to be open-minded, I want you to be um fair, I want you to come in willing to listen and open. Um, and not saying, well, you know, putting blame on somebody, you know, a random person, and you're saying, well, they're the reason I'm here, so I'm gonna make sure that that I punish them where they suffer. That's not fair to the process. Um, so I I do open that up and say, listen, if you don't think that this is here for you or that this is for you, and you know, is gonna impact you to the point that you can't concentrate, that you can't be attentive, let me know. And I'll push for them to, you know, just I I you can't lawyers can't dismiss people from jury duty, but we can dismiss them from our room. I'll push for them to be out of the room. Um, but I tell them how important the process is. Everybody wants to have a jury that they can go to to resolve their dispute if they have a case, and we have to remember that because you know a lot of people say, well, I hate, you know, uh I don't like the court system or I don't like civil cases or anything like that, but then something happens to them that should not have happened. What else are they supposed to do? They go to court, and it's the main people who say they hate cases. But if something happens to them, they do what they're supposed to do, and that's bring a case. That's what our system is. It's a fair system. But just because you bring a case doesn't mean you're right and you're gonna win. The person has the opportunity to defend it. That's what makes the system fair. But just like you have the opportunity to bring the case, and some people bring cases when they shouldn't, that's where you get that impression of, oh, there's just um, you know, these nonsense cases out there. Just because somebody defends the case doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong. You have people who know they did something wrong, but they're gonna try and defend the case anyway because maybe they're winning with technicality. So why you know, so they figure why not? Why not roll the dice? That there's a chance I can win. There's a chance that the jury hates the plaintiff and just decides they shouldn't get anything. Not because I'm I've done I didn't do anything wrong, but you know, for another reason. So just because you try to defend a case or or you see lawyers in court defending cases, that doesn't mean their client didn't do anything wrong. But both sides have the ability to bring their cases in front of a jury to make their arguments, and then it's the jury's job to see through that nonsense. And that's our system. And we will want that system available to us and people being fair in that system if anything ever happened to us. We deserve that. So if you are sitting on a panel, I think you should give that to other people. But I do think I think once people get involved and they see how it works and they hear the first day of testimony or the opening, and then they get into it. They want to know what's gonna happen next. Who's the next witness? Because they want to piece it together and make sure fairness happens. And that's how you see, you see the turn in the juries, where you know you pick them and they're like, yeah. But then two days into the trial, they're the first one there, sitting up in their seat, listening to the witness, looking at the exhibits all into it, um, because it's meaningful. It is. Uh, and ultimately after the case, you'll see that a lot of juries become friends because they've been through this experience together, um, and they've experienced something that impacted somebody's life uh in a meaningful way. It's interesting to see, it's very interesting to see. Uh I've had a lot of different experiences in jury selection. Some good, some bad, some in between. But I will tell you that I think it's the most important part of a case. Because if you pick a jury that's not gonna listen to you or not open to you, it doesn't matter how creative, you know, how much you control the narrative, how much you be yourself, um, if they're tuned out from the beginning and you have no chance, it doesn't make a difference. And that's what you have to just be mindful of, and that's how that's what you have to remind the jury about the fairness of it. If you don't believe that you can, you know, find a homeowner responsible because you own a home and you don't, you know, you you have you feel like you have that connection. Um or if you work in a hospital and there's a medical malpractice case and you um have this, you know, you put the doctors on a pedestal and don't think you can find one responsible, then maybe this isn't the best case for you. Doesn't make you a bad person, doesn't mean you're really trying to get out of your duties, but if you truly feel like you can't be fair, um I appreciate you speaking up about it and letting me know. Um, and and that can be done in private. You know, a lot of times you want to take the juries outside. Uh, if you sense there's an issue, if they let you, you know, they kind of raise their hand like I might have an issue. Um, you know, you want to talk to them and flush it out, it's important. Because you want to make sure that when you go back to your client after jury selection, you say, hey, listen, I I can't tell you what everybody's thinking, but I do believe that everybody is going to be open at least. And that if I show them that you know you were impacted by this, if I show them that the defendant was responsible for this, they're gonna hold them accountable. It's the same in criminal cases. If I have a defendant that I believe you know people would look at and assume they're guilty or have predetermined that they're guilty because of the charge, because of who they are, no matter what it is, my job is to recognize that. Um and and I have to ask those questions to flush it out. Uh and even if with if it's generic questions, do you do you understand that sometimes uh you're charged when you did commit a crime? Do you believe that everybody's perfect? Everybody says no to that, because nobody's perfect. We all know nobody's perfect. So I start with that question do you believe that everybody's perfect? No, of course not. They may think I'm talking about my client, I'm not. I'm talking about everybody. That also includes police officers, it also includes district attorneys, prosecutors. So if you believe everybody's not everybody's perfect or no one's perfect, then you also understand that somebody could be charged when they're not guilty of that crime. Because even police officers are not perfect, which means they could charge someone who's not guilty. So that's all I'm asking for is you to be open and understand that they must prove that they are that my client is guilty. And if they can't, they don't get a free pass to say, well, you tried your best, you know, you you you you did a good investigation, so you should get some kind of credit that wouldn't be fair to my client. But it's my job to flush all of that out and set that stage. You can control the narrative without even talking about the facts. We play the fact game, but sometimes you don't have that. So you tell the jury what the narrative you know from the beginning is going to be. And that's how you can take over a case in the beginning of it and make sure that people are coming in open. And if they come in open, and you then follow that up with controlling the narrative and being yourself that you so that you can relate to them and build that trust and that confidence, you're winning your cases. There's no part of the trial you can overlook. No part of these interactions with uh anyone, jurors, judges, counsel, your client that you can overlook. It's all a puzzle that fits together, and if you leave a piece out, if you go into jury selection, think. Alright, I just gotta get through this so I can start putting on my case. Let me just get people in these seats, you know, and then I'm gonna really turn it on. It may be too late. That's why we talk about it. So we know we have to focus on it. Thank you for tuning in to another episode of Trial and Error. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes in between. We will see you.