Attorneys Wary of ‘Stealth Jurors’ in Jackson’s Trial

In the Martha Stewart conspiracy case, there was the juror who failed to disclose that he had been sued several times and was jailed for allegedly beating up his girlfriend.

In the Scott Peterson double-murder case, there was the juror who was dismissed after telling fellow senior citizens on a gambling outing that the defendant “was guilty as hell and I’m going to get him.”

In the Michael Jackson child-molestation case, nobody knows what secrets prospective jurors might be concealing when they face questioning in open court.

But as attorneys prepare for the grilling, which could start as soon as Monday, they will be looking hard at the candidates whose answers appear too perfect, whose neutrality is too evident, whose eagerness to serve is all too keen.

Earlier this month, more than half of the 400 or so people summoned to the courthouse in Santa Maria, Calif., indicated that they could spend as long as six months on the jury. Their willingness to endure the tedium of a long trial immediately raised alarms among legal consultants: How many, they asked, may be less interested in delivering a fair verdict than in becoming media stars, selling their stories to the tabloids, and maybe even becoming consultants themselves?

And how many of these “stealth jurors” have deep-seated prejudices about the case that they know better than to reveal?

“There’s no question that each side really has to be worried,” said San Francisco trial consultant Beth Bonora. “Maybe there’s a hidden fan who can’t believe that Michael Jackson is guilty, or doesn’t care if he is, or just wants to acquit him. And the defense has to worry about people who have made up their minds that Jackson is so bizarre and difficult to understand that he must be guilty.”

Judges and attorneys agree that the great majority of people who serve on juries, however grudgingly, take their duties seriously. But a 2001 survey done by DecisionQuest, a Los Angeles trial-consulting firm, concluded that one of every seven Americans is willing to hide personal information in order to sit on a high-profile jury.

Even in less publicized cases, stealth jurors have lied their way on to panels where they felt they could make a buck or prove a point.

In a lawsuit over a biotechnology patent, a juror who was an attorney bullied the other panelists during deliberations, spouting dubious legal theory to defend one of the feuding companies, according to DecisionQuest consultant Philip K. Anthony, who was involved with the case.

After the verdict, the juror immediately approached the company he favored and offered his services as a legal consultant, Anthony said. The offer was rejected.

In Tampa, Fla., a man was removed from a jury five years ago after revealing to other jurors that his mother had died of lung cancer and that he had bladder cancer. The problem was that he hadn’t revealed it to attorneys during jury selection in the case, which involved a man suing the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. over his wife’s death from cancer.

In Helena, Mont., a group called the American Jury Institute advises people on how to get on juries in order to combat what they feel are unjust laws and out-of-control judges.

“There should be no happier day in the life of a marijuana activist than the day he opens his mail and finds a summons for jury duty,” an article on the group’s website states.

In the article, readers are coached on delivering answers that attorneys are likely to find pleasing during jury selection. For instance, when they are asked whether they know anyone with a drug problem, the suggested response is: “Yes, but not well.”

The rationale given in the article is that drug users never allow themselves to get close to anyone.

In the Jackson courtroom, trial consultants on both sides will be on the alert as prospective jurors answer questions posed by the attorneys and by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville.

Howard Varinsky, who recently worked for prosecutors in the Peterson trial, will help prosecutors in the Jackson case. The defense will be assisted by Lee Meihls, who worked on the Robert Blake murder trial when Jackson’s lead attorney, Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., was defending the actor from late 2002 to early 2004.

The lawyers and the consultants are under a gag order imposed by Melville. But others in the same field have no problem predicting that attorneys will dig deep into jurors’ attitudes about childhood, sexuality, celebrity, race and money.

“If people have contrived a script to sound the best they can, you start to get a feel for it,” said Richard Gabriel, a Los Angeles trial consultant who worked for the defense in the O.J. Simpson case.

“Sometimes their wording is a little too perfect,” Gabriel said. “Sometimes they’ll use legal language that they feel will get them on the jury. And if they keep insisting that they have no feelings whatsoever about something like child molestation, then you might have a question about that.”

The attorneys’ task will be made tougher by the sparseness of the jury questionnaire that panel members were asked to fill out last week. Potential jurors were asked only 41, mainly yes-or-no questions, with fewer than half related to issues in the case.

“Jurors are more honest in questionnaires than in oral voir dire,” said San Francisco trial consultant David Graeven. “It’s too embarrassing for a lot of people to speak about these things in public.”

Studies have shown that jurors in open court will minimize their knowledge of highly publicized cases, Graeven said.

“They’ll say they only read the headlines, but they’ll also let you know they’re familiar with some detail that was down in the 27th paragraph,” he said.

By their own example, judges can exert a powerful influence in getting jury candidates to speak honestly, experts said.

“I’ve seen judges come down off the bench, sit on the counsel table, and say, ‘I want to tell you a little bit about myself,’ ” Gabriel said. “They have to get jurors to really disclose who they are as people.”

Gregory Mize, a retired Washington, D.C., judge, agrees.

“It’s essential that you develop some kind of contact with the individual, even if it’s momentary,” Mize said.

He proved it in 1998, when he took the time to do quick interviews with every one of his prospective jurors in a side room.

Among the startling revelations that had not emerged during questioning in open court was: “I’m the defendant’s fiancee.”

A veteran of roughly 500 trials, Mize was struck by the relatively small number of prospective jurors who claimed hardship in the Jackson case.

“It’s a problem I wish judges around the country had in garden-variety cases,” he said.