CoPO

Loading

01

Numbers Matter
The size of a CoPO Online Jury isn’t limited to the standard twelve plus two alternates. Instead, litigants are encouraged to select as many or as few Jurors as they feel are appropriate for their case.

02

No Jury Summons
All CoPO-registered Jurors who reside in the communities specified by the parties and are available when needed are electronically invited to fill one of the positions in the Jury pool.

03

More Effective Presentations
Say goodbye to bulky foam boards, binders, and blow-ups that Jurors can't fully view from their seats. In CoPO proceedings, videos, exhibits, and instructions are uploaded, displayed electronically, and accessible during Jury deliberations.

04

Beyond the Verdict
Get insights from Jurors easily with Post-Verdict Questionnaires. For deeper analysis, opt for Demographic Breakdowns to see how different groups voted.



0Pre-Qualified Jurors

About CoPOAbout CoPOAbout CoPO

Today, fewer than 3% of all civil actions ever make their way to a Jury.

As a result, communities have lost their voices in the outcomes of local legal disputes, and fewer matters are being resolved on their merits than are being compromised by concerns about time, money, and the results obtained in superficially similar cases. By increasing access to and the utility of Juries, Court of Public Opinion has committed itself to counteracting the negative consequences that have resulted from the routine forfeiture of the constitutional right to a trial by Jury. Combining technology and a modified Jury system allows CoPO’s online Juries to do what no traditional Jury can. Not only can CoPO’s Online Juries issue a verdict after an online trial, but they are also available for mediations and arbitrations to resolve issues of fact that otherwise prevent the granting of summary judgment, as well as for our most popular offering, focus groups.

What We’re OfferingWhat We’re OfferingWhat We’re Offering

CoPO’s Jury Focus Groups How it works:

CoPO’s Jury Focus Groups allow parties to test their cases, or any aspect of it, in front of Jurors who live in the localities the parties specify. Get a Juror’s perspective on damages, claims, defenses, evidence, attorneys, parties, witnesses...

Test different approaches, presentations, and witness preparations…

Develop and refine trial skills...

The possibilities are only limited by your imagination.

What’s HappeningWhat’s HappeningWhat’s Happening

Latest CoPO News, Articles, and FAQs

View system status, platform updates, how-to articles for Jurors and all parties, and more.

CoPO Focus Group

Why Leading Trial Teams Are Moving Mock Juries Online in 2026

The way trial attorneys prepare for court is changing fast. Over the past few years, mock jury research has quietly shifted from hotel conference rooms to video screens, and in 2026, that transition is accelerating. The question is no longer whether online mock juries work. It’s why some firms are still waiting to use them.

If you’re a trial attorney or litigator preparing for a high-stakes case, understanding what online mock jury testing can do for your strategy isn’t optional anymore. It’s becoming a baseline competency.

What Is Online Mock Jury Testing?

Online mock jury testing replicates the function of traditional mock trials using remote juror panels recruited and screened via the internet. Attorneys and litigation consultants present case summaries, witness testimony, evidence, and legal arguments to simulated juries who deliberate and return findings, all through secure video platforms.

Platforms like Court of Public Opinion (CoPO) allow legal teams to post case details and gather structured feedback from real people representing the demographic makeup of likely jury pools. The result is pre-trial intelligence you simply cannot get from internal case reviews or attorney intuition alone.

Why Attorneys Are Making the Switch Now

Several converging factors have pushed online mock jury research into the mainstream of litigation strategy:

1. Attentiveness Is Comparable to In-Person Research

One of the biggest concerns about remote jurors was whether they would actually pay attention. Research from 2026 has addressed that concern directly: online jurors, when properly recruited and screened, demonstrate attention and engagement levels comparable to in-person participants. The format does not degrade the quality of the feedback when the methodology is sound.

2. Access to Broader, More Representative Jury Pools

Traditional mock trials pull from local populations. That is often a sampling problem. Online platforms allow litigation teams to recruit jurors that mirror the actual demographic, geographic, and attitudinal profile of the venue where a case will be tried. For cases being litigated in unfamiliar jurisdictions, this is an enormous strategic advantage.

3. Cost and Speed Advantages Are Real

Renting a venue, coordinating travel, hiring moderators, and managing logistics for an in-person mock trial adds up quickly. Online case testing reduces those overhead costs significantly, and results can be turned around in days rather than weeks. For firms managing multiple concurrent cases, that efficiency matters.

4. Iterative Testing Becomes Practical

One underrated benefit of online jury research is that it enables iterative testing. Rather than running one expensive mock trial and hoping for the right insights, legal teams can test different case framings, argument structures, or evidence presentations with separate jury panels. Online platforms make this kind of exploratory research cost-effective for more than just the largest firms.

The Jury Perception Gap: What Attorneys Often Miss

There is a pattern in mock jury research that shows up across case types: attorneys are often most surprised not by what jurors decide, but by the reasoning behind it. Jurors frequently focus on narrative coherence and emotional logic rather than evidentiary technicalities. What feels airtight legally can feel confusing or unsympathetic to a civilian panel.

Online mock jury feedback surfaces those perception gaps before they become verdict problems. It reveals which witnesses jurors find credible, which arguments feel evasive, and which pieces of evidence actually land versus which ones confuse. No amount of internal case review reliably produces that kind of insight.

How Online Jury Testing Fits Into Modern Litigation Strategy

The most sophisticated litigation teams in 2026 are not using online mock jury research as a one-time check before trial. They are integrating it into a broader litigation strategy process that may include:

  • Exploratory focus groups in the early case stages to identify juror attitudes and concerns
  • Online jury panels to test specific arguments or narrative framings mid-preparation
  • Full mock trials closer to the trial date to simulate deliberation and identify weak points
  • Witness perception testing to gauge how jurors respond to key witnesses before they take the stand

Online platforms fit naturally at multiple stages of this process, not just at the end.

What Research Says About Juror Decision-Making

Juror decision-making is shaped by a combination of cognitive shortcuts, emotional responses, prior beliefs, and narrative sense-making. Research in legal psychology consistently shows that jurors tend to evaluate cases through the lens of story plausibility rather than strict evidentiary analysis.

That means the most persuasive case is not necessarily the most legally correct one. It is the one that tells the most coherent, credible, human story. Online mock jury testing allows trial teams to identify whether their current narrative structure is achieving that, and to adjust before it is too late to matter.

Common Objections to Online Mock Jury Research (And Why They Don’t Hold Up)

“Online jurors aren’t serious enough.”

Screening and recruitment protocols can address this. Reputable platforms use qualification checks, attention validation questions, and compensation structures that attract engaged participants. The quality of the jury panel reflects the quality of the recruitment methodology.

“The results won’t reflect what a real jury would do.”

No mock jury perfectly predicts a real verdict. The value is not prediction. It is diagnostic insight. Online or in-person, mock jury research tells you where your case has vulnerabilities and where it resonates. That is what you are paying for.

“We don’t have the budget for jury research.”

Online mock jury platforms have significantly reduced the cost floor for jury research. The question is not whether you can afford to test your case. It is whether you can afford not to, especially in cases where the verdict could mean millions in damages or years of a client’s freedom.

FAQ: Online Mock Jury Testing in 2026

What is an online mock jury?

An online mock jury is a panel of recruited participants who review case materials, arguments, and evidence through a digital platform and provide structured feedback, simulating the deliberation and decision-making process of a real jury.

Are online mock juries as reliable as in-person mock trials?

Research indicates that properly recruited and screened online jurors demonstrate comparable attentiveness and decision-making patterns to in-person participants. The methodology matters more than the format.

How early in case preparation should attorneys run mock jury research?

The earlier the better. Running exploratory research during the strategy phase allows attorneys to shape their narrative and argument structure from the beginning, rather than discovering problems when it is too late to fix them.

What kinds of cases benefit most from online mock jury testing?

High-value civil litigation, complex plaintiff and defense cases, cases with strong public perception components, and cases involving witness credibility all benefit significantly from mock jury research.

Can CoPO be used for case testing before trial?

Yes. Court of Public Opinion provides an online platform where attorneys can post case details and gather structured feedback from real audience members representing typical jury demographics. It is designed specifically for pre-trial case testing and argument validation.

Conclusion: The Competitive Edge Is Already Moving Online

The trial attorneys winning high-stakes cases in 2026 are not relying on gut instinct and internal war rooms alone. They are testing their cases before they walk into a courtroom. Online mock jury research has become a standard part of serious trial preparation, and the platforms making it accessible are helping level the playing field for firms of all sizes.

If you are preparing a case that matters, the most important question is not whether to test it. It is whether you are testing it smartly enough.

Explore how Court of Public Opinion can give your litigation team the pre-trial intelligence you need to walk in prepared.

Rate My Case Result

Sources: Courtroom Sciences (courtroomsciences.com), US Legal Support Trial Readiness 2026 Trends (uslegalsupport.com), CiviComm Mock Jury Transition Guide (civicommrs.com)

De-Risking the Courtroom: How Online Jury Focus Groups Shape Winning Litigation Strategies

CoPO Hearing

Every seasoned trial attorney knows the feeling of walking into a courtroom with what seems like a bulletproof personal injury case, only to watch it collapse under the blank stares of twelve unpredictable strangers. You spent months mastering the medical records of a catastrophic commercial trucking accident or a complex product liability case. But to a lay jury, your client’s preexisting conditions are confusing, and your star orthopedic expert comes across as clinical and cold.

Historically, the only way to safeguard against these blind spots was a traditional, in-person mock jury. While effective, conventional focus groups and mock trials require massive financial investments, weeks of logistical planning, and facility rentals that fail to capture the true geographic realities of your actual venue.

Today, data-driven litigators are turning to a faster, more agile alternative: online jury feedback. By utilizing advanced legal tech platforms to test arguments, evidence, and witness perception through virtual environments, personal injury teams can gather massive amounts of public sentiment data long before voir dire.

Here is how incorporating virtual jury insights into your pretrial workflow transforms your overall litigation strategy from a series of calculated guesses into a precise, scientifically backed narrative.

The Evolution of Trial Prep: From Guesswork to Data-Driven Strategy

For decades, personal injury litigation strategy relied heavily on institutional intuition. Partners reviewed the medical files and accident reconstruction reports, identified what they believed to be the core vulnerabilities, and built a trial theme based on past courtroom victories.

While experience is invaluable, human psychology is shifting rapidly. The modern juror processes information differently than a juror did even five years ago. Attention spans are shorter, distrust of large corporations is at an all-time high, and social media trends heavily influence how regular citizens calculate pain and suffering damages.

Modern jury consulting has evolved to meet these changes. Online jury focus group feedback bridges the gap between attorney intuition and actual jury perception. Rather than relying on a small panel of eight to ten individuals in a backroom, virtual platforms allow law firms to present case profiles to demographically matched participants simultaneously, providing a statistically sound look at how everyday citizens react to your case.

Why Pure AI Focus Groups Fall Short (The Human Element)

As legal technology has accelerated, some platforms have introduced completely automated “AI focus groups” that simulate how a panel might respond. While fascinating, pseudo-jurors generated by software do not buy insurance, they do not get injured, and they cannot replicate the deep, unpredictable cognitive biases of everyday people walking into a courthouse.

Platforms like Court of Public Opinion (CoPO) deploy a dual approach: Real-Life Jurors + AI Reporting Analytics.

You are testing your arguments on real people from local zip codes, ensuring the feedback represents actual human emotion, skepticism, and decision-making. The technology doesn’t replace the human; instead, specialized AI algorithms process the written metrics, textual feedback, and structured responses to deliver clean, un-biased data visualization.

Live vs. Recorded: Presentation Formats Built for Injury Strategy

Every lawsuit demands a different approach based on your strategic goals, timelines, and preparation preferences. Modern online jury testing is no longer a static, one-size-fits-all survey. Instead, it offers flexible presentation models:

Live Online Focus Groups

Focus
CoPO Focus Group

For maximum engagement, personal injury teams can host fully interactive, live online focus groups. Through secure, password-protected video conferencing, you present your opening statements, upload accident scene photos, and watch or moderate live juror deliberations in real time. This grants you immediate behavioral insights, letting you see exactly how a group debates liability and medical necessity when you are not in the room.

Recorded Presentation Modeling

If your schedule requires rapid data collection across an expanded pool of jurors, asynchronous recorded presentations are highly effective. You upload your video arguments, key exhibits, or expert deposition clips, allowing the use of bookmarking exhibits to the video timeline. On camera jurors watch the pre-recorded or live online presentation, deliberate, and render verdicts together at the same time. This model delivers swift, mass-panel sentiment analysis without the logistical coordination of a live event.

Unlocking Predictive Power with AI Reporting Analytics

The true differentiator in modern online testing is what happens after the real jurors finish reviewing your personal injury case. Advanced feedback platforms process the text inputs and scoring systems through a sophisticated AI Analytics Engine, turning raw comments into structured metrics:

  • Granular Case Ratings: Before and after your presentations, jurors issue definitive scores on liability, credibility, and overall case strength, showing you exactly how much your narrative moved the needle.
  • Detailed Demographic Breakdowns: The reporting engine automatically maps behavioral data to specific demographic profiles. For example, it might highlight that blue-collar workers over fifty in your specific trial zip code heavily penalize the plaintiff’s driving history, while younger demographics find the defense’s arguments entirely unconvincing.
  • Post-Verdict Questionnaires: Once simulated deliberations finish, the platform deploys comprehensive, structured questionnaires. The AI reads through these text responses to isolate the exact phrase or piece of evidence that caused a juror to change their mind.
  • Liability and Damage Modeling: Algorithms aggregate the human data to forecast how panels will allocate fault percentages (comparative negligence) and estimate potential damage exposures, giving you hard numbers for risk assessments.

See: CoPO’s Behind The Verdict Tools

From Research to Reality: Courtroom Execution with CoPO JurySelect

Pretrial research is only as good as your ability to execute it when trial begins. The demographic insights, implicit biases, and juror profiles uncovered during your online testing form the exact blueprint you need during jury selection.

To bridge this gap, personal injury teams deploy dedicated digital tools directly at the counsel table. Applications like CoPO JurySelect—now officially available for download on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store—completely replace messy sticky notes, legal pads, and manual seating charts.

Ad for The Advocate 4

With a digital seating chart running on your tablet or laptop, your trial team can instantly cross-reference live juror answers against the bias trends identified by your pretrial reporting. Assistants can use a synchronized “mirror mode” to log behavioral notes and update profiles in real time. If a juror is struck, the application automatically updates the seating chart with the next alternate in line, keeping your team entirely focused on winning voir dire.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between online jury feedback and an “AI focus group”?

An AI focus group relies entirely on computer-generated personas to simulate human behavior, which lacks real-world validity. Online jury feedback through platforms like CoPO leverages actual human participants recruited from specific venues. AI is used solely on the back-end reporting side to analyze text responses, case ratings, and demographic correlations.

How do case ratings and demographic breakdowns help with mediation?

When you enter a mediation session armed with objective data from 100 venue-matched online jurors demonstrating a definitive trend in fault allocation, your settlement leverage increases exponentially. Showing the defense that 82% of demographically matched locals rated your case highly and favored a significant award forces realistic settlement positioning long before trial.

How does the CoPO JurySelect app function during live trial tracking?

Available natively on iOS and Android devices, the app provides a dynamic, digital alternative to paper seating charts. It allows lead counsel and second-chair assistants to log juror traits, track strikes, manage alternates automatically, and apply the exact bias profiles learned during pretrial focus groups in real time.

Conclusion: Stop Guessing, Start Testing

The margin between a defense verdict and a multi-million dollar damages award often comes down to a single misunderstood medical graphic or a flawed trial theme. In an era where legal technology equips firms with unprecedented analytical power, relying on guesswork or gut feeling is no longer a viable option.

Utilizing online jury feedback allows your trial team to stress-test arguments on real citizens in a low-stakes environment, refine expert testimony, and uncover critical biases before they can do damage in front of a judge. By pairing advanced virtual focus groups with the mobile power of CoPO JurySelect, you ensure that when you finally step into the courtroom, you already know exactly how the story ends.

Schedule your CoPO Online Focus Group Hearing here

Why Jury Perception Decides Cases Before Attorneys Ever Set Foot in Court

Billionaires and tech giants are rewriting what pre-trial strategy looks like in 2026. When Elon Musk recently accused an OpenAI attorney of trying to “trick” jurors during a high-stakes California federal trial, the moment underscored something trial consultants have known for years: the only thing more dangerous than a weak case is an attorney who does not understand how jurors are already perceiving it.

elonopenai

Jury perception is not a soft, abstract concept. It is the invisible force that shapes verdicts before opening statements begin. The question is not whether jurors form opinions during trial, but whether attorneys are paying attention early enough to do anything about it.

What the Musk OpenAI Trial Reveals About Juror Thinking

The California federal case challenging OpenAI\’s for-profit conversion made headlines, but the more instructive development was how the judge used an advisory jury as a “reality check” for what the court described as a “socially explosive” dispute. This is unusual. Advisory juries are rarely used in federal court, which makes their deployment here a signal that even judges recognize the danger of ruling on complex public-facing cases without understanding how ordinary jurors think.

That is precisely what CoPO helps attorneys do — test the narrative, the witnesses, and the evidence with a representative audience before the real jury walks in.

The Psychology Behind First Impressions in Jury Selection

Research on jury decision-making consistently shows that jurors form lasting impressions within the first few minutes of hearing a case. These impressions are shaped by factors that have nothing to do with evidence: how a plaintiff speaks, how a defendant carries themselves, how a witness answers a question about timing. Cognitive bias researchers call this “implicit anchoring.” Trial lawyers call it “the first five minutes problem.”

What makes this dangerous is that attorneys spend months preparing their case on facts and law, but very little time systematically studying how a lay audience receives their narrative. Without mock jury testing, you are essentially guessing.

The Connection Between Public Opinion and Jury Verdicts

High-profile litigation has always had a public relations dimension, but the “Broadview Six” case in Chicago revealed something more troubling: prosecutors spent months shaping grand jury perception with what a federal judge called behavior in that grand jury setting that was “unprecedented.” The case collapsed under the weight of its own perception management, but it also showed how perception slides between public opinion and jury verdicts almost without friction.

When a case is politically charged or involves a defendant with public recognition, attorneys cannot afford to treat jury perception as a trial-phase problem. It has to be handled in the pre-trial research window.

How Online Jury Testing Changes the Pre-Trial Equation

Focus Group

Traditional mock jury focus groups are expensive and slow. You assemble a group, rent a room, present your case, and wait weeks for a research report. Online jury testing through platforms like CoPO compresses that timeline and allows attorneys to test specific arguments, witnesses, or themes with a much larger sample of participants across different demographics.

The advantage is not just speed. It is the ability to run multiple iterations of your case narrative and measure which framings resonate, which evidence gets dismissed, and which jurors disconnect from your theory of the case before you have spent a single night in trial.

What Attorneys Actually Learn From Jury Feedback

Firms that use structured mock jury testing consistently report finding gaps in their case that are embarrassingly obvious in hindsight. A key witness who comes across as rehearsed. A damages argument that relies on context the jury does not have. A legal theory that sounds correct to a judge but confusing to a ordinary citizen.

Charting

These are not small problems if your entire trial strategy rests on them. Jury feedback from online testing reveals exactly what an attorney will face when twelve strangers walk into a courtroom and start evaluating your client like strangers on the street.

The Limits of Intuition in Trial Strategy

Experienced trial attorneys develop instincts about how jurors will respond, and those instincts are valuable. But instincts are not data. When two attorneys from the same firm look at the same evidence and disagree about which argument will land, you need something more than seniority to resolve that dispute. You need a test.

That is the core argument for pre-trial jury research. Litigation is expensive, outcomes are consequential, and the cost of being wrong is measured in verdicts that can run into the tens of millions of dollars. A few thousand dollars in mock jury testing is not a luxury. It is risk management.

Where Jury Perception Meets Litigation Strategy

The attorneys who are already using online jury testing are not doing it because they lack trial experience. They are doing it because they have enough experience to know that their own perception of their case is probably skewed in ways they cannot see without external feedback. The best trial lawyers are the ones who know how to stress-test their own arguments before someone else does it for them.

Platforms like CoPO make that kind of pre-trial research accessible to firms of almost any size. The goal is simple: find out how actual jurors respond to your actual case, so you can walk into trial knowing what you are working with.

Screenshot 2026 05 22 at 11.11.19 AM scaled 1

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a mock jury and an advisory jury?
A mock jury is a voluntary pre-trial feedback session where attorneys test case themes and evidence outside of court. An advisory jury is a group empaneled by a judge during trial to provide guidance on factual questions, but whose verdict is not binding. Both serve different purposes, but both ultimately measure jury perception.

How does online jury testing work?
Online platforms like CoPO allow attorneys to present case materials, witness testimony summaries, and legal arguments to a pool of participants who evaluate them using verdict forms designed to capture how they would rule and why. Results are compiled and analyzed to identify weak points in the case narrative.

Can jury testing predict actual verdicts?
Jury testing cannot guarantee a specific outcome, but it reliably identifies which arguments are working, which witnesses are persuading, and where juror confusion or skepticism is likely to appear. That information directly shapes trial strategy, witness preparation, and jury selection.

When should attorneys use mock jury testing?
The earlier the better, but most firms use it during case development and again after key developments like depositions, expert reports, or major rulings. Even mid-trial, checking juror perception through informal polling can reveal whether your narrative is landing as intended.

Is jury testing only for plaintiff attorneys?
No. Defense attorneys face the same perception problem. The question is not which side benefits, but whether you understand how a jury is likely to receive your specific case. Defense strategy can be just as damaged by juror confusion or bias as plaintiff strategy.

Conclusion

The gap between what attorneys know about their case and what jurors actually think about it is one of the most consistent sources of preventable trial losses. Online jury testing platforms like CoPO exist to close that gap, giving litigators the feedback they need to sharpen their narrative, prepare their witnesses, and walk into court with a strategy built on something moresolid than intuition alone.

Whether you are handling a high-profile dispute with socially explosive dynamics or a complex commercial case, the principle is the same: you cannot afford to skip the step of knowing how your case looks through a juror’s eyes. The verdict starts forming long before opening statements. Your pre-trial research should start earlier.

 

Behind the Verdict: What Jurors Really Think

How Court of Public Opinion reveals not just what jurors decide, but why

1 eryaIol8quWsCSY5NW7PFQ

When a jury reaches a verdict, the decision is only part of the story. What matters just as much is how jurors got there: what evidence captured their attention, which testimony they trusted, and whether different groups of jurors reacted in different ways. Without that insight, attorneys are left making educated guesses about what resonated and what did not.

Court of Public Opinion eliminates that uncertainty. Our tools are designed to look beyond the verdict, providing data on juror attention, credibility assessments, and demographic patterns. These insights not only strengthen trial preparation but also provide attorneys with leverage in mediation and arbitration, where understanding strengths and vulnerabilities can drive settlement outcomes.

Rate-My-Case / Relevancy Meters

In a recent focus group involving a fire injury case, the central question was who bore the greater share of responsibility: the property owner or the contractor who performed the electrical work. Using CoPO’s Rate-My-Case, jurors individually rated the persuasiveness of the testimony and evidence. Counsel expected jurors to place primary fault on the property owner. Instead, a significant portion of jurors pointed to the contractor, noting that the wiring appeared careless and poorly maintained. That feedback allowed the attorney to rebalance the way liability was presented, emphasizing safety obligations while anticipating juror skepticism about the contractor’s role.

ratemycase singlerecord

Demographic Breakdowns

1 d3hvVzG6oVH61SEIlroQAQ

Court of Public Opinion’s Demographic Breakdowns provided clarity on how jurors from different backgrounds viewed the dispute. Overall, the panel leaned toward awarding damages, but the breakdowns showed that older jurors and women were significantly more convinced by the plaintiff’s evidence, while younger jurors were more skeptical about whether the owner should be held primarily responsible. This insight allowed counsel to refine voir dire strategy for trial and gave them a realistic understanding of how different audience compositions might affect outcomes.

Post-Verdict Questionnaire

After the fire case deliberations concluded, jurors were invited to complete Court of Public Opinion’s Post-Verdict Questionnaire. Their responses shed light on why they reached their conclusions and how they weighed the evidence overall. Some jurors emphasized the photographs of the burned wiring as the most persuasive factor, while others pointed to the contractor’s testimony as leaving doubts unresolved.

After trial, attorneys often try to speak with jurors to learn what influenced their decision, but those conversations are informal and inconsistent. The Post-Verdict Questionnaire gave counsel a more structured, reliable record of juror perspectives.

These responses highlighted themes that had not fully emerged during deliberation. In mediation, the feedback gave attorneys concrete talking points to address perceived weaknesses. In trial preparation, it helped them anticipate where jurors might need clearer explanations or stronger evidence.

Why It Matters

Litigation is resource-intensive and unpredictable. Mediation and arbitration may be more streamlined than trial, but persuasion still matters. By looking behind the verdict, CoPO helps attorneys see not only what jurors decided but also why. In the fire case, Rate-My-Case, Relevancy Meters, and Demographic Breakdowns worked together to provide a full picture of juror reasoning. With that knowledge, counsel was able to adjust arguments, strengthen negotiation strategy, and approach trial with greater confidence.

Litigation is costly and complex. With CoPO, attorneys can access reliable jury feedback cost-effectively, then use it to present more effectively at trial and to shape negotiation strategy in mediation and arbitration.

To see how CoPO’s tools can strengthen your next case, contact us for a demonstration.

Written by Candy Elliott

Preserve The Right To A Jury Trial By Maximizing Juror Satisfaction

Honor the Seventh Amendment by being fully engaged in the final status conference

Crowley Daniel web afde7af61a4d94d9b6e3d8ce9dd94ad5Hon. Daniel M. Crowley was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2018. He sits in Dept. 28 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which is one of the Court’s Personal Injury Hub courts. Prior to his appointment, he was a trial attorney with Booth, Mitchel & Strange, LLP, where he was Managing Partner.

Daniel M. Crowley
Advocate logo2
https://www.advocatemagazine.com 2024 February


I suspect that few readers of this article would disagree with the importance of the right to a jury trial in civil cases. After all, the right to a jury in a civil trial is enshrined in the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. I further suspect that few readers would disagree with the importance of citizens serving as jurors in those civil cases. As noted by Abraham Lincoln, “The greatest service of citizenship is jury duty.” Jury service not only offers the populace a dispute resolution mechanism, but it also serves to educate the citizenry about our system of justice.

Yet, I fear that we do not pay adequate homage to the importance of citizens serving as jurors. We take jurors for granted. We are not mindful of their time or of the sacrifice they incur when serving as jurors. A recent poll indicated that 21% of jurors questioned reported that they were dissatisfied with how their time was used. (Brian L. Cutler & Donna M. Hughes, Judging Jury Service: Results of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts Juror Survey, 19 Behav. Sci. & L. 305, 317 (2001).)

A citizen having a negative experience as a juror can cause at least two possible negative effects. First, from a practical standpoint, a juror’s negative experience may make that individual likely to attempt to avoid future juror service. It is hard to convince someone to comply with their obligation to serve as a juror if his or her past experience serving felt like a waste of time. Second, negative juror experiences may erode the public’s confidence in the jury system as a whole. (Diamond, S.S., What Jurors Think: Expectations and Reactions of Citizens Who Serve as Jurors in Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury (Brookings Institution) pp. 282-305 (1993).) If enough of the populace believes jury service is an unpleasant waste of time, we may lose the political will to maintain the system.

From my experience as both a juror and as a judge, I find jurors are most satisfied when they are made to feel that they have an important role in trial and the Court and the attorneys respect that they have taken time out of their lives to serve as jurors. Consistently being told to show up at 10:00 a.m. but then not being called to business until 11:00 a.m. does not engender a sense of importance or respect. Accordingly, for the sake of satisfied jurors and, in the long run, to maintain the right to a civil jury trial, counsel should do what they can to minimize wasting jurors’ time.

Maximizing use of jurors’ time

I have found that one of the best ways to reduce the potential for jurors to have a negative jury service experience is for counsel to be fully prepared for trial. I have also found that one of the best ways for counsel to be prepared for trial is to fully engage in the court’s final status conference (FSC). This is a two-step process: (1) Meeting and conferring in preparation for the FSC, and (2) attending the FSC with full authority to make decisions re the admissibility of evidence, the instructions to be given to the jury, and the verdict form.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule 3.25(f) prescribes the requirements for an FSC. To be fully prepared for an FSC, counsel must meet and confer with counsel from the other side. All too often, this means that counsel’s associates exchange e-mails about the documents due at the FSC. Instead, counsel should prepare for the final status conference by meeting in person. Trial counsel should attend and not just send associates. However, for the purpose of training and thoroughness, both trial counsel and associates might want to consider attending.

At the meeting counsel should explain how the trial will proceed. What witnesses will the plaintiff call, and when? What exhibits will plaintiff seek to introduce? How does the plaintiff intend to introduce them? Does the defense have any objections to these exhibits? If so, what are the objections? Will the defendant stipulate to any of the facts to be testified to or to the introduction of any exhibits? And vice versa for the plaintiff. By the time of the FSC, there should be no mystery on any of these issues; if there are, you are not prepared for trial.

At the meeting, counsel should put together a notebook for the Court to use at the FSC. The notebook should be lodged with the Court before the FSC, so the Court has an opportunity to review it. The notebook should contain:

1) Motions in limine

Motions in limine and oppositions to them most likely should have been exchanged prior to counsel’s pre-FSC meeting since they should be filed to be timely heard at the FSC (16 court days plus time for service prior to the final status conference (LASC Rule 3.25(f)(2)).

Los Angeles County Superior Court rule 3.57 mandates that motions in limine be accompanied by a declaration stating a specific reference to the matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial. Vague references, such as to “items not disclosed in discovery” or “speculative evidence,” will not suffice. Similarly, moving to exclude items clearly inadmissible, such as “impermissible hearsay,” is unnecessary and wasteful of the court’s time. (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 671; see also Elizabeth A. Hernandez, Esq., Motions in Limine Advocate, February 2014.)

The declaration must also contain a representation to the court that the subject of the motion has been discussed with opposing counsel. The declaration must also represent that opposing counsel has either indicated that such matter will be mentioned or displayed in the presence of the jury before it is admitted in evidence, or that counsel has refused to stipulate that such matter will not be mentioned or displayed in the presence of the jury unless and until it is admitted in evidence. A representation that the day before the motion was filed counsel sent a yet-to-be-responded-to email will not suffice. Counsel must engage in this meet and confer process well in advance of the date that motions in limine must be filed.

The declaration must also contain a statement of the specific prejudice that will be suffered by the moving party if the motion is not granted.

Finally, if the motion seeks to make binding an answer given in response to discovery, the declaration must set forth the question and the answer and state why the use of the answer for impeachment will not adequately protect the moving party against prejudice in the event that evidence inconsistent with the answer is offered.

Motions in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking summary judgment or the summary adjudication of an issue or issues. Those motions may only be made in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c and applicable court rules. Likewise, motions in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues. That motion may only be made in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 598.

The trial notebook should have all of plaintiff’s motions in limine separately tabbed, with some divider (e.g., colored paper) between the motion, the opposition, and the reply, with a similar organization for the defense motions.

2) Statement of the case

Unless counsel stipulate to giving mini opening statements to the prospective jury, the trial notebook must contain a short statement of the case to be read to prospective jurors. The purpose of the statement is to advise the prospective jurors of the who, what, and where of the matter they are to decide so prospective jurors can advise if they have familiarity with the parties or the issues presented. The statement is not an opportunity to advocate. It (or the mini opening) should be along the lines of:

This is a case involving a claim of [breach of contract/medical malpractice/ motor vehicle/employment discrimination]. The plaintiff is [name]. The defendant is [name]. Plaintiff [name] contends defendant [name] [breached a contract/committed medical malpractice/negligently operated a motor vehicle/engaged in employment discrimination]. The defendant disputes the defendant’s contentions.

The statement should be that simple and that short. Its only purpose is to give the 35 people who have arrived in the courtroom a general sense of what type of case they will be deciding and for whom.

3) Witness list

The witness list should list in alphabetical order all witnesses expected to be called by any party. (It does not matter if one side objects to the witness being called. The witness should be listed so the Court can address the issue.) One use of the witness list is to see if any of the prospective jurors have any relationship with the witnesses, so the witnesses’ names should be listed. Asking the prospective jurors whether they know the “Person Most Knowledgeable at X Corporation” usually is of no effect.

The witness list should contain five columns labeled as follows: witness name, whether they are percipient or expert, and the anticipated lengths of direct, cross, and redirect examinations. If more than one side anticipates calling a particular witness, estimates should be provided for each side. The list should contain a tally of all the anticipated testimony (direct + cross + redirect) in hours (e.g., 17.5 hours).

At the final status conference, counsel should be prepared to address whether they truly intend to call each witness identified and to explain their estimates. In keeping with the point of this article, counsel should consider whether any witness’s testimony is truly needed and whether it is duplicative of other witnesses’ testimony. Jurors resent having to sit through repetitive testimony. In preparing the witness list, counsel may be tempted to include names of witnesses they do not intend to call, “just in case.” This may be appropriate under some circumstances, but the FSC should be considered the “eve of trial,” and tactical decisions should have been made by this time.

4) List of proposed jury instructions

Counsel will need to meet and confer over the instructions they want the Court to read to the jury. If counsel cannot agree whether a particular instruction should be given, it should simply be included on the list with a notation that it is objected to. The list should be formatted pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.1055 (four columns be placed adjacent to each proposed instruction so that the Court can keep track of whether it gave the instruction, gave it as modified, refused it, or if it was withdrawn). (LASC 3.171.)

Meeting and conferring on jury instructions in advance of the FSC is one of the most efficient uses of counsel’s time, especially in cases with multiple causes of action or affirmative defenses. Reviewing jury instructions takes time, and that time will be much better spent while meeting and conferring in preparation for the FSC than at the FSC. Waiting until the close of evidence to do so and then spending the jurors’ time arguing about the instructions just before they are to be read disrespects the jury.

5) Jury instructions

Counsel should prepare the jury instructions, themselves, on plain white paper, with only the instruction number and the text of the instruction included. All blanks should be filled in and all bracketed material either deleted or the brackets around same deleted. Since the Judicial Counsel promulgated Rule 2.1055 (above), there is no longer any need to print the boxes identifying the requesting party, authority for, and outcome of the instruction at the top of the jury instruction (nor to print the instructions on perforated paper). (LASC 3.170.)

6) Exhibit list

The exhibit list should identify all potential exhibits to be introduced at trial. If any side objects to an exhibit, the objection should be articulated on the exhibit list. The FSC should not be the first time opposing counsel becomes aware of an exhibit. The exhibit should have been exchanged and discussed when counsel met and conferred in preparation for the FSC. At the FSC, be prepared to explain that objection. This is all to avoid sidebars during trial, and, again, to be mindful of our jurors’ experience as jurors.

(As an aside, deposition transcripts and discovery devices/responses are not exhibits and do not need to be listed on the exhibit list or produced in the exhibit book.)

7) Exhibit book

By the time of the FSC, all exhibits should have been exchanged and marked and organized into an exhibit book. You should have all your exhibits available to discuss at your pre-FSC meet and confer. The exhibits in the exhibit book must correspond with the exhibits on the exhibit list. Each page of each exhibit should have its own identifying mark. For example, if Exhibit 3 has four pages, each page should be marked consecutively (i.e., 3.1, 3.2, etc.). (LASC Rule 3.53.) Bring a copy of the exhibit book to the FSC so the Court can see that all exhibits are properly marked and can view any disputed exhibits. The Court will only need one exhibit book at the FSC, but at trial, each counsel, the witness, the Court’s clerk, and the Court will need their own exhibit book.

8) Use of depositions in lieu of live testimony

If any party intends to use deposition testimony in lieu of live witness testimony, the party shall meet and confer and jointly prepare and file a chart with columns for each of the following: (1) the page and line designations of the deposition or former testimony requested for use, (2) objections, (3) counter-designations, (4) any responses thereto, and (5) the Court’s ruling.

9) Verdict form

The parties should prepare a joint verdict form. If the parties cannot agree on a joint form, they should prepare separate forms and be ready to discuss the issues with the other party’s proposed form.

Following your pre-FSC meeting, counsel should prepare and file joint documents (apart from the exhibits) five court days prior to the FSC.

The final status conference

At the FSC, trial counsel should appear in person and be prepared to address each of the items contained in the trial notebook. They should be prepared to justify the calling of each witness identified and the introduction of each exhibit sought to be introduced. If you haven’t already, you should be prepared to reach stipulations on certain evidence. You should be prepared to provide the court with reasonable and accurate time estimates for trial. LASC Rule 3.25(h) provides that if the time estimate of either party is exceeded, the court may, in its discretion, deem one or both parties to have rested, deem the matter submitted, continue the trial to a new trial date, or declare a mistrial.

Counsel should be prepared to discuss the areas of proposed voir dire interrogation to be directed to prospective jurors and whether there is any contention that the case is one of “unusual circumstances” or contains “unique or complex elements, legal or factual” within the meaning of Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 3.25, such that usually improper voir dire questions may be asked or limited preinstruction concerning the law may be appropriate.

Counsel should be prepared to discuss whether the court should read the statement of the case or allow counsel to give mini-opening statements to the prospective jurors. (LASC Rule 3.73.)

Counsel should discuss any issues relating to accommodating counsel, party, witness, or juror disabilities.

Counsel should be prepared to discuss what happens if sitting jurors are excused.

Counsel should be prepared to discuss how to handle deposition transcripts (original versus certified copies), etc.

Counsel should consider whether there is any evidence that may reasonably be anticipated to be inflammatory or highly prejudicial and potentially excludable pursuant to Evidence Code section 352.

Counsel should prepare to consider and enter into various stipulations at the FSC. For example, the Court may request counsel to stipulate in writing that:

(1) Unless called to the attention of the court, all jurors will be deemed to be in the jury box and in their proper places upon court reconvening after each recess or adjournment.

(2) After having given the admonition required by Code of Civil Procedure section 611, the court at each subsequent recess or adjournment need not repeat or remind the jury of the admonition theretofore given.

(3) In the absence of any counsel the court may:

(A) upon the request of the jury, read to the jury any or all instructions previously given;

(B) have read to the jury, at its request, any portions of the evidence given in the trial and may supply the jury, on its request, with any of the exhibits received in evidence;

(C) call the jury into the courtroom to ascertain whether a verdict is probable, to receive the verdict of the jury and poll the jury; and

(D) in the event of the failure of the jury to reach a verdict, permit the jurors to separate and resume their deliberations on the morning of the next court day or such other time as may be fixed by the court.

The Court may ask counsel to stipulate that, in the absence of the trial judge after the original submission of the case to the jury, any judge of this court may act in place of the absent trial judge up to and including the time of discharge of the jury.

The Court may ask counsel to stipulate that in the event of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, a stay of execution may be issued to be effective for a period of 10 days after determination of a motion for a new trial or until 10 days after expiration of the time to file notice of intention to move for a new trial.

Counsel should be prepared to discuss what demonstratives, if any, may be used in opening statements. All of this with the goal of making the trial go smoothly and efficiently.

Conclusion

History tells us that if we don’t work to maintain our institutions, they can be lost in a moment. We must never take the right to a jury trial for granted. We must diligently work to preserve civil juries. This requires that we respect our jurors’ time and instill in them a belief that their work is important. Counsel’s role in this exercise is working together to be prepared.

Learn more, do more, on CoPO.

Tips and Support Articles

Explore our growing library of guides on CoPO, featuring insightful 'How-To' articles to enhance your use of party account tools and builders, alongside answers to common questions. We also provide targeted support resources for Jurors, Parties, Judges, and Neutrals. This evolving collection of help articles is steadily expanding to better assist you in navigating and making the most of CoPO's platform.