Private detectives and psychological profiles to seduce the popular jury

BarcelonaIf the death of Mango's founder, Isak Andic, it is judged as a homicide, will remain in the hands of a popular jury. The case of Begoña Gómez. These courts deal with a list of crimes including homicide and murder, but also others such as failure to assist, home invasions, and some corruption cases. The nine people who form them are not judges, but they become workers of the administration of justice for a few days to decide whether the accused is guilty or not. This means that the strategies that prosecutions and defenses use to convince these judges novellas will largely be different from those they usually exhibit when faced with professional judges. "It forces you to act much more," says a jurist. In addition, the lawyers and prosecutors in the case have the final say on who will be on the jury; hence strategies to seduce them begin even before the trial.

Potential jurors are selected by lottery from the census of the district where the case is being tried. They all answer a questionnaire with basic information, and just before the trial begins, the lawyers and the prosecution can interview them to select them. Confirming or expanding the little information they have about the candidates can be key to approaching this selection. "If you have money for the cause, you hire a private detective to investigate who is who," explains lawyer Eloi Castellarnau, who has handled high-profile cases before the jury, such as the one where he achieved the acquittal of a girl accused of inciting a friend to kill her father.

For example, the law firm can request a review of the candidates' social media to detect if they have positioned themselves on any issue related to the events and to predict whether their opinion may benefit or harm them in the case to be judged. Castellarnau suggests that someone who has openly expressed racist opinions may be quickly dismissed by the defense of a foreign defendant, while the prosecution will likely prefer them as a juror.

Detective Enric Vilamajó recalls that profiling jury candidates "is done a lot in the United States, but in Spain it is not legal." However, he assures that he is aware that some detectives do it, for example, by consulting databases to get "a snapshot" of the candidates. Advisors also advise the lawyer on what profile they should prioritize, taking into account the circumstances of the case and what evidence will be on the table.

Another jurist comments that in a case like the death of Isak Andic, in which there will be expert evidence on how the fall down the Collbató ravine occurred, prosecutions and defenses could consider whether it favors them to have someone on the jury whose profession is related to physics. Aspects such as whether they have experienced episodes of violence throughout their lives, and whether they have been victims or aggressors, are also usually taken into account, explains Miquel Àngel Soria, professor of legal psychology, criminal and advanced criminology at the University of Barcelona. However, he adds that two people with the same experience can have completely different mental frameworks. 

"A game of poker"

Before the trial begins, lawyers and prosecutors interview candidates to select those who will form the jury. Normally, between thirty and forty people are summoned. The prosecutions can challenge – that is, veto – a total of four, and the defenses, four more. "It's a game of poker: you have to discard the worst card," says Soria. The selection must end with nine jury members and two alternates, who will follow the entire trial but will not participate in the deliberation unless one of the main members has to be absent due to force majeure.

With a few minutes of interview, prosecutions and defenses must get the idea of whether or not it is convenient for them for that person to be part of the jury that will evaluate the case. "You notice if they have a certain sensitivity, you ask them if they would be bothered to sentence someone to prison, if they believe in the justice system...", exemplifies Castellarnau. The lawyer insists that the profile they look for will change in each case and depending on whether they are defending a defendant or representing a prosecution. "If you believe there are police abuses and that innocent people are convicted, it interests you as a defense. If you believe the laws are unjust, that more years in prison should be paid and that everyone who commits a crime gets away with it, it interests you as a prosecution – Castellarnau explains. On more than one occasion when I was a defense attorney, a candidate said: 'I wouldn't dare send anyone to prison,' and obviously the prosecutor or the prosecution challenged them."

The prosecutor Félix Martín has specialized in jury trials and among the cases he has handled is the Guardia Urbana crime, where he obtained the maximum sentence for Rosa Peral and Albert López. Prosecutors are the first to question candidates and Martín explains that he starts by trying to calm them down, because many arrive nervous, asking them simple questions about their daily lives. "If they tell me they are readers, I ask them which book they recommend to me," he recounts. He usually spends about five minutes with each candidate and focuses on asking them questions that allow him to get a general portrait of the person and, above all, "to detect extreme profiles". In fact, he assures that prosecutors seek to avoid "hyper-leadership" among jurors: contrary to what might seem, very punitive profiles are not necessarily more beneficial for the prosecution, because it can "provoke rejection, or generate a rebound effect" in the rest of the jury members.

Martín also warns of the risk of "overestimating academic intelligence", and insists on the importance of "common sense", which he assures can be detected with questions about everyday things. He sees it as important to avoid "any profile that may have prejudices" – such as someone who has had a family member falsely accused – and repeats the importance of "collective intelligence" that is built when jury members work together. Furthermore, he sees it as positive that jury members have different life experiences and recalls an example: "A person with a lot of academic intelligence and a comfortable life did not understand why a mistreated woman continued with the accused. On the other hand, a caregiver with a difficult life, did".