Scottsdale, AZ commercial litigation attorney Daryl Williams discusses whether he prefers to try cases before a judge or a jury. He explains that I always strive to have my cases presented in front of a jury. Persuading a jury is my preferred approach because judges often have confirmation bias, influenced by their pre-existing views and perspectives on the law, which can seep into their factual findings. They may have certain opinions about the lawyers involved or the overall posture of the case. In contrast, when facing a jury, I have a group of individuals rather than a single decision-maker. This diversity of perspectives is advantageous.

With a jury, I have the ability to win seemingly unwinnable cases. After weeks of trial proceedings, jurors can become confused. In such situations, if they can perceive a consistent narrative from me and find me trustworthy, they are likely to vote in my favor. Their decision may not necessarily be based solely on the merits of the case itself, but rather on their perception of the attorneys involved. This is a reality that those who have not spent enough time in the courtroom may not fully comprehend.

Allow me to illustrate this point with a case I was involved in against the largest Law Firm in Phoenix. The case revolved around a failure to pay royalties for a patented procedure purchased by an international firm responsible for managing cotton farming worldwide. The procedure was designed to provide product advice, recommendations on water usage, pesticides, and other factors. My client had developed a program that they sold with the promise of royalties. However, the purchasing firm shelved the program without implementing it.

During the trial, the opposing party presented numerous justifications for not implementing the program and offered a settlement of $750,000 before the jury phase. We proceeded with the trial, and eventually, I obtained a judgment of $14 million. After the trial, some jurors expressed a desire to speak with me informally. However, such conversations often lack objectivity, as jurors tend to tell you what they think you want to hear. They may hesitate to provide candid feedback, fearing offense or discomfort. Hence, it is challenging to obtain an unbiased response from a juror who ruled in favor or against me.

Nonetheless, one female juror shared an interesting perspective. She mentioned that the case I presented seemed complicated to her, but she appreciated how my wife took care of my shirts every day. This personal anecdote influenced her decision to vote in my favor. Although I didn’t correct her assumption that my wife handled my shirts (in reality, I send them to the dry cleaners), it highlights the sometimes limited depth of understanding jurors may have. It is worth noting that this juror was not the foreperson, who generally possesses a better understanding of the case dynamics. Individuals like the juror who liked my shirts tend to follow the lead of the foreperson. Therefore, it is crucial to address the case primarily to the jury leaders, rather than focusing solely on jurors with potentially superficial perceptions or biases.