realist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 11:18 am
northland10 wrote:As for the attorneys here, while IANAL, part of me would not want you on a jury, especially if you were a litigation attorney. I would fear that a trained attorney might be able to influence a jury more than most.
"Influence" in what way, exactly? And why would (whatever that "influence") be necessarily a bad thing?
I mean "influence" not as much as the attorney intentionally influencing others but that their presence may cause the jurors to look more toward the attorney than they personally consider the issues. Folks here like Filly I would trust to try to avoid that (as she mentioned she denied being foreperson) but the fact that they looked to her for that shows they considered her position as a greater one to look up to, likely due to her vocation, and not for her natural abilities and knowledge that are not dependant on her lawyer position.
As an example, my parish (i.e church) has had various small-group discussions about ministries and the future direction of the parish. While officially a member and communicant in good standing of this parish, I have not attended any of those small group discussions. While I would hope that parishioners would feel free to speak their mind even around me (which some are very good at), I realize that my training along with my pastoral and position of authority could cause others to unconsciously hold back. My role with the parish is a pastoral one and one of "power." That is not a good or bad thing, it is just the way it is (and, btw, why certain relations are not allowed between myself and parishioners who may be in a pastoral relationship with me because we are not on equal ground since a power relationship exists). I intentionally make sure that I am not in a place where I may prevent our parishioners from providing their full thought without checking their words because somebody in "authority" is around.
Seeing an attorney as John Q. Public when they are in a jury is not entirely a realistic expectation. An attorney in a courtroom, even if just passing by, visiting, or serving on a jury, may easily be seen to others as a person of authority. It is human nature to make those associations. It is not good or bad, it is just the way it is.
This has nothing to do with the attorneys themselves and if they are able to rise above this. I would like to see it possible but juries are also made up of different people who see things in many different ways and therefore, some may allow the mere presence of an attorney on the jury influence how they consider the case. For this reason, "part of me" would not want a lawyer on the jury if I were an attorney trying a case (which I am not, and maybe my thinking would change if I was a lawyer).