We Gave Four Good Pollsters the Same Raw Data. They Had Four Different Results.

This is little off topic, but somewhat to the point of four different reviewers processing the same information and producing four different results. About thirty years ago, I went to an experiment related to trial practice. The goal was to show how important picking the right jury was. They found a hit-from-behind personal injury case that settled just before trial. They got a circuit court judge to come in for a Saturday, and found about thirty five volunteers from the community who represented a sample jury pool. They brought in the plaintiff and defendant, their counsel, and the experts, other witnesses, and exhibits.

Then on a Saturday morning, having chosen four separate juries, one composed of mostly young women, another of mostly middle aged men, and the other two a mixture, the two attorneys tried the case, just as they would have done if it hadn't settled. The defendant was a clean-cut young man who had struck the car of a middle aged woman from behind, injuring her back and neck - or so she claimed.. There were no bones broken nor any definitive proof of the injury, except for the diagnosis of her experts, the plaintiff's testimony, and her physical therapy records.

After trial, the four juries went off to separate jury rooms and deliberated. When they came back, one was a run away verdict for the plaintiff, one a defendant's verdict, and the other two were small awards for the plaintiff, one very small as I remember.

The point illustrated is indeed how important picking the right jury is, but also, in a larger sense, how four different groups doing their best can review the same evidence, and reach four different conclusions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.