Provide Certainty

In the last two blogs I’ve talked about the concept of juror as hostage. I’ve talked about the S-C
-A-R-F model from David Rock, author of Your Brain at Work, and the five social needs that when threatened, can activate the survival instinct in the brain. Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness. A decrease in status, a lack of certainty, a removal of autonomy, an absence of relatedness and the perception that something or someone is unfair are all perceived as threats by the brain.

In the last blog I I introduced you to the Five ‘P’s’ that will help you reverse the threat jury selection creates:

1. Preserve Status
2. Provide Certainty
3. Protect Autonomy
4. Promote Relatedness
5. Prove Fairness

We tackled Preserve Status in the last blog, so in today’s blog, let’s move onto “Provide Certainty.”

Lack of certainty activates the survival response. Our brains are wired to view unfamiliar people and places with suspicion. If we don’t know what’s going on it feels unsafe. Until we can determine that something isn’t threatening, we assume that it is.

Jurors have little to no certainty when it comes to jury selection. Lack of certainty begins the moment a prospective juror receives a summons in the mail. “What kind of case will I be sitting on? How long will it take? When will I know if I have to be a juror?”

Once the day of jury selection comes the uncertainty continues. “What should I wear? Where is the courthouse? Is there parking?”

Once the prospective juror finds his or her way to the courthouse there’s even more uncertainty. “Which line do I stand in? Do I have to take my shoes off like at the airport when I go through security? What room do I go to?”

But once jurors get to the right place are they awarded with certainty? Nope. Now the waiting game begins. “How long do I have to wait here? What are we waiting for? When is lunch?”

When the jurors finally make it into the courtroom, they’re still not given any certainty. Now there are new people and new places to sit and an intimidating judge watching over the entire process.

The number one thing jurors need at this point is certainty. But do you, the attorney, provide it?

No.

Most attorneys attempt to “break the ice” by asking about a juror’s hobbies or passions or what books they’ve read lately.

This is the absolute opposite of what you should do. Here’s why:

Almost every communication situation tends to fall into one of two buckets: relationship or issue. Most attorneys strive to create a relationship in voir dire; they want jurors to like and trust them. But jurors have no desire to have a relationship with you. Remember, most jurors don’t want to be there at all. Attempting to create a relationship with jurors at the beginning of voir dire doesn’t work because jurors begin the process in issue mode. If you truly want a relationship with jurors, you have start with issue-oriented communication.

Permission can be defined as how receptive people are to you and your message. Meeting people where they are is the number one way to increase permission. Gaining a juror’s permission is the true goal of voir dire, not trust. There simply isn’t enough time to gain a juror’s trust in voir dire and attempting to do so can backfire.

So how do you increase permission and meet jurors where they are? Get to the point.

Jurors are expecting the entire song and dance of lame jokes, being talking down to, (does anyone really need an explanation of what bias is?) and attempts to get them to like you. When you refuse to do this and get to the point, not only does permission go up, but so does your credibility. You’re not what they were expecting. By getting directly to the point you communicate that you take this process seriously; and by doing so you teach them to take it seriously too.

What does it mean to “get to the point?” Tell jurors why they’re there. Tell them what the case 
is about. No, don’t give details you can’t give, but tell them what types of issues they’ll have to 
wrestle with and what’s at stake. Involve them in the process. Right from the beginning. When 
you do this you communicate that you take them seriously and honor their time.

Preserve a juror’s status. Provide them with certainty. Next time we’ll talk about the third P: Protect a juror’s autonomy.