I9I4.] PSYCHOLOGY OF JURORS AND JURIES. 315 



of the lawyers have very little direct effect on a substantial jury. In 

 simple cases not involving too much consideration of human nature 

 or of the motives perhaps most jurors catch the drift of the evidence 

 and make up their minds before the trial is through — even though 

 they suppose themselves open to conviction either way. 



Lawyers damage their cases — sometimes lose them, by what the 

 jury regards as an unfair trick. Some jurors are affected by the 

 fact that a famous lawyer is on the case — his reputation alone 

 carrying weight. 



A very slight thing may bias the juror. One lawyer lost favor 

 with some jurors because of his continual smile and offhand pleas- 

 antry in his pleading. Another quite properly asked one of the 

 jurors, whom he called by name, to define a technical business term 

 — the lawyer being or assuming to be not quite sure of it himself. 

 This fact was noted in the jury room and charged up against that 

 juryman's opinion — one of his confreres asserting that apparent 

 friendship with the plaintiff's attorney affected his judgment. This 

 charge was entirely good natured but was given to offset a charge 

 that the juror favoring the defence was partisan because of his local 

 affiliations — the defendant hailing from the juror's locality. The 

 jury disagreed in this case which was one of great difficulty because 

 of local interests, human motives, and the large losses and gains in- 

 volved. And yet no one can question the honesty of every juror there 

 — while also no one can help questioning the amount of coloration 

 in the minds of not a few of the jury arising from these causes apart 

 from the formal evidence. It was noteworthy that all the jurors 

 who were of a certain foreign descent and understood the same 

 foreign tongue although not previously acquainted with each other, 

 voted together. An unconscious esprit-de-corps arose which banded 

 them solidly against the other half of the jury. I do not think that 

 either side noticed this fact but I am quite sure that the subtle in- 

 fluence of nativity and speech worked on them without their know- 

 ing it. Of course no court could foresee or suspect or avert this. 

 I instance it only as an illustration of unconscious . congregate in- 

 fluences on honest and conscientious but untrained minds. 



I have been strongly impressed with the comparatively helpless 

 situation of the defense in many cases of suit for damages especially 



