Jury Duty Insights: Empathy and Civic Duty in the Courtroom

About this Episode

Welcome to today’s episode of The Communication Solution podcast with Casey Jackson, John Gilbert and Danielle Cantin. We love talking about Motivational Interviewing, and about improving outcomes for individuals, organizations, and the communities that they serve. This episode explores how empathy and effective communication are pivotal during jury selection and throughout the trial process. Casey offers profound insights into the judicial system’s complexities, emphasizing the critical role of civic duty and the challenges it faces in modern society. The podcast also discusses the concept of ambivalence, particularly in the context of legal decision-making and jury deliberation, highlighting the impact of individual values and biases. Through Danielle’s firsthand account, listeners gain a deeper understanding of the deliberation dynamics and the diverse approaches jurors bring to the table. The episode underscores the importance of appreciating civic responsibilities like jury duty, and recognizing its significant impact on individuals, organizations, and communities.

In this podcast, we discuss:

• Jury Duty Experience: Danielle Cantin shares her recent jury duty experience, emphasizing the significant role of communication and empathy in the judicial process.
• Empathy in Jury Selection: Danielle discusses how empathy and communication techniques were crucial during the in-depth jury selection process she underwent.
• Navigating Societal Norms: The conversation touches on societal perceptions of jury duty and the struggle between societal norms and personal values.
• Judicial System Insights: Casey Jackson provides insights into the complexities of the judicial system, highlighting its challenges and the importance of civic duty.
• Ambivalence in Decision-Making: The podcast explores the concept of ambivalence, especially in the context of jury deliberation and legal decision-making.
• Impact of Individual Values: The discussion emphasizes how individual values play a critical role in jurors’ ability to be fair and unbiased.
• Motivational Interviewing and Jury Duty: While not directly applicable, the principles of motivational interviewing are discussed in relation to understanding and navigating personal biases and ambivalence.
• Deliberation Dynamics: Danielle shares her experiences during jury deliberation, illustrating the diverse approaches and thought processes among jurors.
• Appreciation for Civic Responsibility: The podcast concludes with a reflection on the honor and responsibility of serving as a juror and the profound impact of such civic duties on individuals and the community.

You don’t want to miss this one! Make sure to rate us or share this podcast. It would mean so much to us!

This has been part one of a two-part podcast. We hope you’ll join us for the second portion. You don’t want to miss this one! Make sure to rate us or share this podcast. It would mean so much to us! Thank you for listening to the communication solution. This podcast is all about you. If you have questions, thoughts, topic suggestions, or ideas, please send them our way at casey@ifioc.com. For more resources, feel free to check out ifioc.com.

Transcribe

 Hello and welcome to the communication solution podcast with Casey Jackson and John Gilbert. I’m your host, Danielle Cantin. Here at the Institute for Individual and Organizational Change, otherwise known as IFIOC, we love to talk about communication, we love to talk about solutions, and we love to talk about providing measurable results for individuals, organizations, and the communities they serve.

Welcome. To the communication solution that will change your world. Hello everyone. It’s Danielle Cantin here, your facilitator with the communication solution podcast. And I am here joined by Casey Jackson, your host. Hey Casey. Hey. How are you? I’m doing good. Awesome.  We are going to go down a little path.

I was on jury duty. I was selected for jury duty.  So I would love to talk to you about the communication solution, all the things you train in terms of empathy and all of these things were popping for me as I was going through this process, which honestly, I don’t remember I’ve ever participated in. I think I maybe went into a big giant room and eventually was let out.

Maybe I heard. Attorneys questioning people that they ended up choosing, but this was really unique. I actually went through a pretty in depth selection process. It was about three days long. And,  then I was chosen. And I think many people might know that you can be unchosen.  It’s not rocket science to figure out what you might need to do, even if it isn’t true to,  Present yourself in a certain way that might not be appealing.

So,  it reminds me of, did you ever see the, the series,  the jury duty? Netflix, where the one guy suggested that a guy say something and it was just like, no, you don’t, you don’t. Cause it wasn’t true for him at all. But all of these things are popping through my head as I’m in this, because that’s not ideal.

Everybody, the instant reaction to jury duty is, Oh God, really? Oh, bummer. You get out of it. And I found myself slipping into just society norms of like, Oh, like drama, trauma, how, how’s business going to continue? And this is so much time and you know, all the, all the, the pokes at, well, Oh, you can get 15 a day, you know, there’s just so much negativity around it.

And yes. I would love to, to kind of get your insights on what happened for me through that process. Cause it started there and I was just like, Oh man, I can’t believe it was actually called a emergency. You actually, your group has to come in. Cause I got away Friday night. I didn’t have to, I called, I don’t have to come in Monday night.

I called emergency. You have to come in tomorrow. And I was like, Oh, snap. Transition to people telling me, well, you know, you just can. Do this or do that and get out of it and me having to reevaluate my values very much. So yeah, so it was a tough case.  So I’m doing more talking probably than listeners.

I would ever want you guys to have to put up with because we want to hear from you Casey, but to give you a context and give you some questions.  I’d love your perspective on the judicial system and what that opportunity and role might be for a juror. Yeah, it’s difficult because it does trigger my own writing reflex, you know, so I just will own that ahead of time, but I have my own biases and, and,  and it does have an impact on the whole judicial system.

I’ve been lucky enough to work from, you know. Probation with law enforcement from the minute something happens to,  working with judges who I just have been able to work with the entire spectrum to people being long term incarcerated,  the D. A. Prosecutors. Yes, they love prosecutors. So I get all these different vantage points.

Um. And then when I step back and look at systems, you know, and try to bridge this from your individual experience as a juror and, you know, the system, justice system, part of the reason the justice system is broken, it is broken and you can ask nearly anyone. I’ve talked to judges who will say it, prosecutors say it, definitely the actual people that are in the justice system feel that it’s broken.

Part of it is because of this whole thing about civic duty. You know, 50 years ago, you were not, you did not try to ditch jury duty. It was an honor to serve my mother. It was, it was truly like voting or like, this is part of being part of our country, like other countries don’t all have this kind of a judicial system where it’s a jury of your peers.

So it’s sad to an extent that a jury of my peers don’t want to be a jury. Um. You know, so then you end up with a jury of people who want to, you know, and then there’s, so there’s some intrinsic bias there instead of having people that just genuinely are like, this is my civic duty. I am showing up because I want to be part of a judicial system on a larger level.

So that’s my, that’s my bias. I’m just going to own ahead of time. I, I know I have bias and I know that this has a profound impact on how I view this, but I’m going to try to pull it into the M. I. lane. Do you think,  That that’s part of what’s broken is the fact that the jury of the peers really doesn’t this interesting that you said your mom viewed it as something great.

I don’t have that memory of anybody ever enjoying it or looking forward to it, but I will tell you, I got there fast because I know so many,  public defenders, criminal, private criminal defense attorneys,  DAs as well. I somehow attract attorneys, so I’m all set if anything’s ever needed.  But I, so I know them, but I never fully understood or, or looked at the top of the mountain for me and what I value until this experience, because it was truly an honor.

And,  it wasn’t, I’m doing my duty, pat me on the back. It was, man, I am so grateful as broken or as faulty as the system is. I don’t have a ton of experience of what it’s like everywhere else, but I am awfully grateful for where I live and the opportunity should I need it. On either side, right? And that’s what I got really fast was,  while I lean toward empathy, like very high, high empathy, I was like, am I able to pull, have that for both?

And am I able to,  be objective? And my only point is, can, will you follow the law, whether I agree with it or not, and be a fair, a fair juror to both sides to everything.  And I was like, man, I would, if I was on either side, I would want someone like me and on the, on the 12