They say lawyers never get picked for juries. I believed that—right up until I served 10 days as a juror in a civil trial involving aggravated sexual assault allegations and defamation counterclaims.
Sitting in the box instead of at counsel table was a master class in how non‑lawyers actually process cases. Here are a few takeaways for anyone who tries cases to juries.
Voir Dire: Ask the Obvious Questions
Plaintiffs’ counsel was from out of town. Defense counsel were local; I personally knew several of them and had tried cases against their firm for years.
Plaintiffs’ counsel never asked whether anyone on the panel knew opposing counsel. I sat there wondering if I had an ethical duty to volunteer that information. After trial, Plaintiffs’ lead lawyer told me it “wouldn’t have mattered” because they wanted me on the jury anyway.
Maybe so. But as a practice point:
Why fly blind on something that basic?
Credibility Is the Whole Ballgame
Plaintiffs opened with a strong narrative: an encounter that was uncomfortable and unwanted from the start.
Then they played surveillance video showing plaintiffs and defendants walking into an apartment complex: talking, laughing, touching, clinking drinks. Whatever the explanation, the footage did not match the promised story.
Defense hadn’t said a word yet, and the jury was already skeptical. That disconnect:
The same thing happened in closing. Plaintiffs’ counsel delivered a fiery, emotional argument that their young clients’ lives were “forever shattered.” To me, it was powerful. To many jurors, it was overreach. They didn’t buy the “angelic victim / ruined forever” framing and resented being pushed that far.
The lesson — Credibility isn’t just about honesty; it’s about proportionality and alignment.
Once jurors feel “you’re stretching it,” they start discounting everything.
Leading with Deposition Video Is a Risk
Plaintiffs called the defendants first—by video deposition—even though both defendants were sitting in the courtroom.
Three problems:
1. Bad first impression of the case.
Our first “live” evidence was…a screen. No explanation why. Several jurors were busy figuring out the procedure instead of listening to content.
2. Choppy, hard‑to‑follow testimony.
The clips jumped between topics and prior affidavits. Exhibits flashed too small to read. It felt disjointed and underwhelming for Day 1.
3. Handing control to the other side.
Defense then called the same defendants live. That was the jury’s first real witness box experience—and it belonged to the defense. They instantly felt more in command of the narrative and the room. We were left wondering why Plaintiffs hadn’t examined them live.
You may have good reasons to use video, but think hard before leading with it—especially for central witnesses who are physically present.
Be Careful Hammering Experts on Fees
Plaintiffs did the classic “jukebox witness” cross on all three defense experts:
The jury reaction was clear: they didn’t care. To jurors, experts get paid. That’s the job. No one was offended by the numbers. Several people questioned why we spent so much time on it. It didn’t dent the experts’ credibility.
I walked away thinking expert fee cross examination is not a default “must do.” Use it when:
-
You can tie the money directly to bias or a clear pattern (e.g., “95% defense‑only, same carrier, same counsel”).
Otherwise, you may just look like you’re wasting time.
Social Media Cuts Both Ways
Plaintiffs testified about loss of social life, confidence, and fear of travel. On cross, defense simply played Plaintiffs’ own public posts: Instagram photos and videos of partying, drinking, traveling (including international trips), all after the alleged events. The cross was minimal: “That’s you?” “Yes.”
Is social media a complete picture of anyone’s life? Of course not. But:
Jurors gave those posts significant weight. They didn’t see devastated, homebound young people; they saw active social lives and travel. That disconnect hurt Plaintiffs’ credibility across the board. If you’re trying cases in 2026 and not aggressively auditing your clients’ and key witnesses’ social media—on both sides—you’re missing (or risking) powerful evidence.
Jurors Notice How You Treat People
Overall, counsel on both sides were respectful. But in deliberations, several jurors commented that defense counsel seemed more consistently measured and respectful with witnesses, particularly on cross.
Did that swing the verdict? Hard to quantify. Did it influence who we trusted more? Absolutely.
Jurors are constantly:
Aggression, sarcasm, and eye‑rolling might win points at counsel table. From the box, they often look like insecurity.
Conclusion
Serving as a juror reminded me of something we all say but don’t always practice: Jury trials are not exercises in pure logic; they’re human decision‑making in real time. Facts matter. Law matters. But so do expectations, tone, visuals, proportionality, and respect. If you align all of those with the story you’re telling, your evidence lands very differently in the box than it does in your outline.
