But it makes sense. Aviva Rutkin at NewScientist (14 March 2015) (paywall) reports on a new way for trial lawyers to run test trials:
I HAVE only a few pages of evidence with which to decide the fate of a maintenance man from Texas. While at work trying to untangle a spool of wire on a crane, his right hand was caught and severed when the line pulled taut. He sued for negligence, and I am leafing through his lawyer’s court strategy trying to decide who is to blame and what damages are due.
This is the work of an online juror. For 20 minutes to an hour of work and up to $1 per minute in pay, ordinary people can offer their opinions on real cases to the attorneys who are working on them. These amateur assessments, crowdsourced and interpreted by online services, give lawyers insight into how an actual jury might rule long before anyone steps into the courtroom.
Mock juries are nothing new, but they are typically performed in person. Lawyers often bring volunteers into a courtroom to observe a fake trial and reach a verdict. But these run-throughs can cost tens of thousands of dollars, all for a single jury’s opinion. Adrienne LeFevre of the service OnlineVerdict, based in Chicago, says online mock trials allow attorneys to pick the brains of dozens or even hundreds of mock jurors.
Another provider is eJury. But not everyone thinks this will work out:
Rich Matthews, a trial consultant in San Francisco, is sceptical that these sites can replace traditional mock jury research. By soliciting opinions virtually, he says, all of the subtle non-verbal cues that go into a real trial are lost. The jurors miss out on the dynamic experience of deliberating with one another, and the lawyers do not pick up on the intensity or the tone of the jurors’ opinions.
Having sat on a trial many years ago, I think Mr. Matthews’ argument has some merit. On the other hand, the jury room can be quite dynamic, and if one or two jurors, having come to an improper conclusion, assert themselves, they could easily sway a jury in a case if the balance of the jury is not strong-minded, or, more importantly, if either side was not clear in its delivery; thus, having the evidence in written form without someone hanging over you is appealing, at least to this engineer – I would not have to separate facts from emotion. And then there may be the back and forth with the judge concerning various matters – but that would not occur in a traditional mock trial, either.
