The pressofAtlanticCity.com reports that the jury in the trial of NJ State Trooper Robert Higbee asked to go home at 4:30 Friday without reaching a verdict. To this former juror that suggests the jury is deliberating responsibly, as the system was designed for them to do. I wish them well.

Recently I “opined” that it’s a bad idea for a judge to send the case to the jury on Friday, because it sends a signal that the judge thinks the decision is easy. Dr. Sunwolf commented to the effect that juries behave like all humans do—they need the weekend break and, so, at least one juror is going to want to end the trial by the end of the day Friday. At least in this case, the jury began deliberating on Thursday (briefly) and has now taken the time to assess the issues dispassionately.

Dr. Sunwolf’s comment struck me as very wise. I realized why she and I differ on our jury perspectives (I’ve read her Practical Jury Dynamics with great interest). It isn’t only that Dr. Sunwolf is a lawyer, it’s that she is an expert in Communications. I’m neither one. I’m a rhetorician—by training and by preference.

The Communications field studies human behavior. It’s a Social Science. Rhetoric is the study of “the art of persuasion.” (I think I’ll explore the difference between my idea of “courtroom rhetoric” and the behavioral sciences concept of group dynamics further in later posts.)

My comment about Fridays came from my analysis of what message is intended by a judge and how it may subtly persuade a jury.

PS: The Higbee jury clearly has not accepted the calculations presented by the prosecution to prove its case of recklessness. That means they aren’t relying on their emotions. They aren’t taking one side or the other based on any biases they may have. They’re going to decide on the evidence. And in this former juror’s opinion, what they’re doing is NOT their “own investigation” (as suggested by TV commentators). They are checking the expert witnesses’ conclusions based on the black-box data. They are finding the fact.