One side’s refusal to follow jury-selection research can shape a trial’s outcome

Evidence

From the outset the prosecution and defense in O. J. Simpson’s murder trial knew that jury selection would be crucial to the outcome. The defense team retained Jo-Ellen Dimitrius, a crack jury consultant with a record of success with Los Angeles juries. … With this information Dimitrius and Vinson each constructed profiles of the ideal defense juror. Their profiles largely coincided: a blue-collar, middle-aged, African-American woman who had some personal or familial experience with law enforcement. Simpson’s attorneys heeded Dimitrius’s advice and sought to select jurors who fit this profile. However, prosecutor Marcia Clark rejected Vinson’s advice, confident that the spousal-abuse issue in the case and her experience in establishing rapport with African-American women jurors would be decisive. The prosecution thus failed to use its full allotment of 20 peremptory challenges, and the jury that finally acquitted Simpson included eight African-American women, one African-American man, two white women, and one Hispanic man. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 835

Categorization

• XREF: Pairs with the 2003 Simpson acquittal narrative as a case of scientific jury selection affecting verdicts. — connects to: Jury nullification persists even though voters exceed their legal authority — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 870; Peremptory challenges let attorneys remove jurors without giving reasons — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 831; Where a case is heard shapes who can win it. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 328 (+2 more)