Just Because Juries Don't Know Legal Language, Doesn't Mean They Aren't Smart
Evan Schaeffer of the Illinois Trial Practice Blog, has a great post Communicating with Juries by Acting Like a Regular Person: Is It Even Possible?. As Evan says:
… To put it another way, I remember what it was like to be a typical juror. Here's the key: I wasn't stupid. Despite my lack of legal education, I happened to be damn smart--smarter that I am today, I'm pretty sure. My only failing was that I hadn't yet been indoctrinated into that cozy group of professionals who knew the meaning of words like tort, strict liability, negligence, and demurrer, and who sometimes looked down at those who didn't.
I think you get the point. Try it yourself. By thinking back to a time before law school, you too might be able to get in touch with your inner regular person. I'm certain you'll find that he was smart, articulate, and intellectually engaged. He probably had a wealth of personal experience. If a snotty lawyer had stood up in front of him and said that he was going to "attempt to keep things simple" so that "even a non-lawyer could understand"--well, your inner regular person probably would have been a tad offended. He'd probably have asked the lawyer to get the hell off his pedestal and start acting like a regular person.
He makes a good point. There’s a whole world of smart people that aren’t lawyers. The entire post is worth a read.
"inner regular person" -- that's classic!
