AI Analysis of Court Transcripts Shows Jury Selection
Bias Patricia Waldron, writing for the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science, reports that researchers at Cornell University have found that prosecutors question prospective jurors differently depending on their race and gender. Using natural language processing (NLP) tools, which utilize AI technology, the study identified several differences in the length, complexity, and sentiment of questions asked of black jurors. The data set analyzed included transcripts from 17 capital cases in South Carolina and more than 26,000 questions asked of potential jurors by not only prosecutors, but also by judges and defense attorneys. Notably, no differences were noted in the questions posed by judges and defense attorneys. Ms. Waldron writes that one possible explanation for why prosecutors alter their questions for black and female jurors is that they may perceive them as being more sympathetic to the defendant.
Trump to Seek Venue Change in His D.C. Case
Matt Ford of The New Republic criticizes former president Donald Trump’s assertion that he cannot receive a fair trial in our nation’s capital due to the District’s partisanship. In a post to Truth Social, Trump’s self-launched social media platform, the former president announced that he would be seeking a change of venue in the forthcoming trial against him for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Additionally, Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, told NPR that “We’re looking for a jury that will be more balanced.” Mr. Lauro also added, “And West Virginia was a state that was more evenly divided.” The author points out that in West Virginia, the former president received roughly two-thirds of the vote; on the other hand, he only garnered 5.4% of votes in Washington. Mr. Ford opines, “Had Trump recognized in 2020 that all Americans are equally capable of carrying out their civic duties, he would not be on trial in 2023 for allegedly conspiring to deny them their constitutional rights.”
Editor’s Note: U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, has previously denied another January 6 defendant’s motion to move his case out of Washington due to the alleged political bias of potential jurors, pretrial publicity, and the impact of January 6 on local residents. Relying on Skilling v. United States, which involved former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling’s attempt to have his conviction overturned based on the alleged inability to receive a fair trial in Houston, where Enron was located, Judge Chutkan rejected these arguments. First, she found that the defendant had failed to produce evidence showing that the impact of January 6 affected the entirety of the District of Columbia and thus precluded an impartial jury from being impaneled. She also pointed out that jurors’ political leanings do not by themselves prevent them from being able to impartially weigh the evidence and apply the law as instructed by the court. Next, the U.S. District Judge ruled that the defendant had produced no evidence supporting his assertion that negative coverage of January 6 was more pervasive in the nation’s capital than elsewhere in the country. Last, Judge Chutkan found that the amount of time that had elapsed between January 6, 2021, and the defendant’s forthcoming trial weakened the argument for presumed prejudice. Additionally, she stated, any existing prejudice can be effectively addressed by voir dire, thus rendering defendant’s pre-trial challenge premature.
If Mr. Trump is going to be successful, he is going to need to make a more compelling argument than the one attempted by his January 6 co-participant. Skilling made clear that only in an “extreme case” will a jury be presumed to be inherently prejudiced due to pretrial publicity.
Today's Jurors Dislike Corporate Defendants, Lawyers, and Justice System
In a column for Reuters, Jenna Greene discusses the findings of a jury sentiment survey spearheaded by San Francisco-based firm, Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe. The survey, which involved more than 1,000 people eligible for jury service, included 150 questions on a variety of legal issues. The results indicated that potential jurors have less trust in the justice system today than before the pandemic; while two-thirds of prospective jurors reported having trust in the courts before COVID-19, that percentage has dropped to less than half in 2023. In addition to having grown more distrustful of the American legal system, today’s jurors are increasingly antibig business, with the percentage of those potential jurors reporting that they perceive corporations negatively having nearly doubled from 27% pre-pandemic to 45% now. Lawyers who represented corporate defendants were also looked down upon, while plaintiff’s attorneys were viewed more favorably.
Georgia Grand Jury Likely to Hear Case Against Trump
Next Week CNN’s Jason Morris and Zachary Cohen report that grand jurors in Georgia are expected next week to be presented with evidence by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis of former president Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the Peach State. It’s speculated that Ms. Willis will bring racketeering charges against the former president in her effort to secure an indictment. Ms. Willis has previously used the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to garner convictions, telling reporters in 2022 “The reason that I am a fan of RICO is, I think jurors are very, very intelligent. They want to know what happened. They want to make an accurate decision about someone’s life. And so, RICO is a tool that allows a prosecutor’s office and law enforcement to tell the whole story.” Ms. Willis’ move comes after a special grand jury convened in Georgia recommended indictments in the Trump election probe. Under Georgia law, special grand juries are not permitted to issue indictments. Instead, they may issue a final report recommending whether further legal action should be taken by the district attorney.
Readers: Submit Your Nominations for User Experience Court Capers Contest
As part of the National Center for State Court’s upcoming Court Technology Conference, NCSC is holding a User Experience (Ux) Court Capers Contest to recognize standout courts that are using technology to truly enhance the user experience. The National Center believes that by recognizing and celebrating these trailblazers, we can set higher standards for courts nationwide and inspire others to adopt more user-friendly practices. This contest offers more than just recognition; there are some fantastic prizes lined up for our winners. The Center for Jury Studies asks you to consider nominating those courts that have utilized technology to enhance jurors’ experience. To submit nominations or for additional information and inquiries, please visit this link: CTC 2023 Endnote: UX Court Capers Challenge – CTC 2023 (courttechnologyconference.org)