Last month I came across a blogger who was headed to jury duty for the first time. She wrote a funny blog on courtroom fashion at DC Goodwill Fashion. (I wonder if she was selected for a jury.)

This issue of what not to wear for jury duty is quite interesting. A Google search of “blog what to wear for jury duty” produces 95,800 English listings, many of which focus on how to get out of jury duty by dressing inappropriately. The consensus seems to be that “business casual” is appropriate, so anything too casual or too formal or “fancy” is not.

However, these bloggers are jurors or prospective jurors. What really counts is what lawyers and judges think.

Anne Reed, an attorney in Milwaukee, posted this interesting take on the issue, including the (IMHO) “obnoxious” practice of jurors dressing alike as a sign of bonding. She also mentions some courts in which a specific dress code obtains.

Which leads me to this issue of jury bonding. One day in the jury deliberation room, one of the jurors described her real-life job, which was something like “keeping the stud book” for animals at a local zoo. This naturally led to some jokes and considerable laughter. Later, the bailiff came into the room and mentioned that our laughter could be heard in the courtroom, but that was OK because the judge liked it when “her jurors bonded.” OK, I know what is meant by that is that a copasetic group is more likely to reach a verdict than a fractured jury. 

But in the interests of justice, a fractured jury that reaches a verdict is more likely to have reached a consensus on the facts rather than based on common feelings and values. Shouldn’t the judge always be wary of too much bonding?

What do you think? I’d especially like to know what other lawyers, judges, and jury consultants think about both jury attire and jury bonding