I just finished serving on a jury—this, my first time even called for jury duty. And like with all new experiences, when finished, I reflected on what I learned.
Now, without getting into the details of the case, it’s safe to say it was a fairly ordinary offense. In fact, many of the jurors (myself included) admitted in deliberation that they weren’t sure why such an offense would ever come to trial. It seemed routine. Cut and dry.
The prosecuting attorney went about his argument as if it were cut and dry. A morning of building the credibility of the arresting officer. Confirming the due process. He even showed us a video that he felt proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Then, in the afternoon, the defense attorney provided context to the morning session, giving the jury an informed perspective on the credibility of the arresting officer. He provided context for understanding due process and where deviations might have occurred. He provided context for looking at the video.
And while the prosecutor never really recovered from his inability to provide general context, he would have been alright except for his failure to provide context for the one specific piece of irrefutable evidence. Nor did the defense attorney provide us context for that piece of evidence. And the State made it even tougher when it asked us to use this piece of evidence to rule on two different charges. So we, as a jury, were left to make up our own context, right or wrong, for that piece of evidence. Our deliberations on this routine offense spilled into a second day because each of us had different life experiences, sensibilities and interpretations of the instructions, causing us to create different contexts from which to interpret the content of the evidence.
In the end, the prosecution and defense attorneys did the system an injustice by not providing full and proper context for their arguments. They told us “What happened” but often failed to tell us “So what that means is…” Or, “why this is important is…”
The lesson is a stunning reminder that while content might be king, it easily becomes pauper without appropriate context. I’m reminded that in all of my communications, I must help my audiences understand why my content is important and what they can do with it. In other words, provide the appropriate context.
On a side note, I got to spend time deliberating with a very tall ex-NBA basketball player. I’m sure had there been an inter-jury basketball tournament, we would have won it going away.
A Marketplace of Ideas 