Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:56 — 43.8MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

About this Episode

Welcome to today’s episode of The Communication Solution podcast with Casey Jackson, John Gilbert and Danielle Cantin. We love talking about Motivational Interviewing, and about improving outcomes for individuals, organizations, and the communities that they serve. This episode explores how empathy and effective communication are pivotal during jury selection and throughout the trial process. Casey offers profound insights into the judicial system’s complexities, emphasizing the critical role of civic duty and the challenges it faces in modern society. The podcast also discusses the concept of ambivalence, particularly in the context of legal decision-making and jury deliberation, highlighting the impact of individual values and biases. Through Danielle’s firsthand account, listeners gain a deeper understanding of the deliberation dynamics and the diverse approaches jurors bring to the table. The episode underscores the importance of appreciating civic responsibilities like jury duty, and recognizing its significant impact on individuals, organizations, and communities.

In this podcast, we discuss:

• Jury Duty Experience: Danielle Cantin shares her recent jury duty experience, emphasizing the significant role of communication and empathy in the judicial process.
• Empathy in Jury Selection: Danielle discusses how empathy and communication techniques were crucial during the in-depth jury selection process she underwent.
• Navigating Societal Norms: The conversation touches on societal perceptions of jury duty and the struggle between societal norms and personal values.
• Judicial System Insights: Casey Jackson provides insights into the complexities of the judicial system, highlighting its challenges and the importance of civic duty.
• Ambivalence in Decision-Making: The podcast explores the concept of ambivalence, especially in the context of jury deliberation and legal decision-making.
• Impact of Individual Values: The discussion emphasizes how individual values play a critical role in jurors’ ability to be fair and unbiased.
• Motivational Interviewing and Jury Duty: While not directly applicable, the principles of motivational interviewing are discussed in relation to understanding and navigating personal biases and ambivalence.
• Deliberation Dynamics: Danielle shares her experiences during jury deliberation, illustrating the diverse approaches and thought processes among jurors.
• Appreciation for Civic Responsibility: The podcast concludes with a reflection on the honor and responsibility of serving as a juror and the profound impact of such civic duties on individuals and the community.

You don’t want to miss this one! Make sure to rate us or share this podcast. It would mean so much to us!

This has been part one of a two-part podcast. We hope you’ll join us for the second portion. You don’t want to miss this one! Make sure to rate us or share this podcast. It would mean so much to us! Thank you for listening to the communication solution. This podcast is all about you. If you have questions, thoughts, topic suggestions, or ideas, please send them our way at [email protected]. For more resources, feel free to check out ifioc.com.

---

Transcribe

 Hello and welcome to the communication solution podcast with Casey Jackson and John Gilbert. I’m your host, Danielle Cantin. Here at the Institute for Individual and Organizational Change, otherwise known as IFIOC, we love to talk about communication, we love to talk about solutions, and we love to talk about providing measurable results for individuals, organizations, and the communities they serve.

Welcome. To the communication solution that will change your world. Hello everyone. It’s Danielle Cantin here, your facilitator with the communication solution podcast. And I am here joined by Casey Jackson, your host. Hey Casey. Hey. How are you? I’m doing good. Awesome.  We are going to go down a little path.

I was on jury duty. I was selected for jury duty.  So I would love to talk to you about the communication solution, all the things you train in terms of empathy and all of these things were popping for me as I was going through this process, which honestly, I don’t remember I’ve ever participated in. I think I maybe went into a big giant room and eventually was let out.

Maybe I heard. Attorneys questioning people that they ended up choosing, but this was really unique. I actually went through a pretty in depth selection process. It was about three days long. And,  then I was chosen. And I think many people might know that you can be unchosen.  It’s not rocket science to figure out what you might need to do, even if it isn’t true to,  Present yourself in a certain way that might not be appealing.

So,  it reminds me of, did you ever see the, the series,  the jury duty? Netflix, where the one guy suggested that a guy say something and it was just like, no, you don’t, you don’t. Cause it wasn’t true for him at all. But all of these things are popping through my head as I’m in this, because that’s not ideal.

Everybody, the instant reaction to jury duty is, Oh God, really? Oh, bummer. You get out of it. And I found myself slipping into just society norms of like, Oh, like drama, trauma, how, how’s business going to continue? And this is so much time and you know, all the, all the, the pokes at, well, Oh, you can get 15 a day, you know, there’s just so much negativity around it.

And yes. I would love to, to kind of get your insights on what happened for me through that process. Cause it started there and I was just like, Oh man, I can’t believe it was actually called a emergency. You actually, your group has to come in. Cause I got away Friday night. I didn’t have to, I called, I don’t have to come in Monday night.

I called emergency. You have to come in tomorrow. And I was like, Oh, snap. Transition to people telling me, well, you know, you just can. Do this or do that and get out of it and me having to reevaluate my values very much. So yeah, so it was a tough case.  So I’m doing more talking probably than listeners.

I would ever want you guys to have to put up with because we want to hear from you Casey, but to give you a context and give you some questions.  I’d love your perspective on the judicial system and what that opportunity and role might be for a juror. Yeah, it’s difficult because it does trigger my own writing reflex, you know, so I just will own that ahead of time, but I have my own biases and, and,  and it does have an impact on the whole judicial system.

I’ve been lucky enough to work from, you know. Probation with law enforcement from the minute something happens to,  working with judges who I just have been able to work with the entire spectrum to people being long term incarcerated,  the D. A. Prosecutors. Yes, they love prosecutors. So I get all these different vantage points.

Um. And then when I step back and look at systems, you know, and try to bridge this from your individual experience as a juror and, you know, the system, justice system, part of the reason the justice system is broken, it is broken and you can ask nearly anyone. I’ve talked to judges who will say it, prosecutors say it, definitely the actual people that are in the justice system feel that it’s broken.

Part of it is because of this whole thing about civic duty. You know, 50 years ago, you were not, you did not try to ditch jury duty. It was an honor to serve my mother. It was, it was truly like voting or like, this is part of being part of our country, like other countries don’t all have this kind of a judicial system where it’s a jury of your peers.

So it’s sad to an extent that a jury of my peers don’t want to be a jury. Um. You know, so then you end up with a jury of people who want to, you know, and then there’s, so there’s some intrinsic bias there instead of having people that just genuinely are like, this is my civic duty. I am showing up because I want to be part of a judicial system on a larger level.

So that’s my, that’s my bias. I’m just going to own ahead of time. I, I know I have bias and I know that this has a profound impact on how I view this, but I’m going to try to pull it into the M. I. lane. Do you think,  That that’s part of what’s broken is the fact that the jury of the peers really doesn’t this interesting that you said your mom viewed it as something great.

I don’t have that memory of anybody ever enjoying it or looking forward to it, but I will tell you, I got there fast because I know so many,  public defenders, criminal, private criminal defense attorneys,  DAs as well. I somehow attract attorneys, so I’m all set if anything’s ever needed.  But I, so I know them, but I never fully understood or, or looked at the top of the mountain for me and what I value until this experience, because it was truly an honor.

And,  it wasn’t, I’m doing my duty, pat me on the back. It was, man, I am so grateful as broken or as faulty as the system is. I don’t have a ton of experience of what it’s like everywhere else, but I am awfully grateful for where I live and the opportunity should I need it. On either side, right? And that’s what I got really fast was,  while I lean toward empathy, like very high, high empathy, I was like, am I able to pull, have that for both?

And am I able to,  be objective? And my only point is, can, will you follow the law, whether I agree with it or not, and be a fair, a fair juror to both sides to everything.  And I was like, man, I would, if I was on either side, I would want someone like me and on the, on the 12. And so that’s kind of true to, to my answer jury of your peers.

I mean, that to me, it, you know, when we look at motive for me, when I look at just some of the aspects of motivation, because you can’t say, I mean, motivationally is not part of jury duty. It’s these constructs that I talk about it, that I get obsessed with. And like, when we talk about values,  If you have more individualistic values and you don’t want to serve on a jury because it’s inconvenient to you, that is a value for yourself.

If you look at things like integrity, for a system to have integrity, it takes people that have integrity, and the way you define your approach to it is a way that’s integrity. What your decision may not line up completely with your values. Your decision is going to line up with integrity to what the law is and to the facts presented in front of you.

And to take that seriously is just a different mindset.  Which is why they try to get a jury of your peers who have less bias because they want it to be a fair trial. And wouldn’t we want the exact same thing, you know, I would want a jury of people that despise motivational interviewing on my, on my jury, if they hated motivational interviewing,  like that’s, doesn’t feel fair,  if people have, you know, religious bias or cultural bias or racial bias,  immediately it’s just like, this isn’t fair.

You know, and for justice to be served, it requires that level of,  you know, that,  the lack of bias, which is what we talked about with equipoise and motivational interviewing. And what’s difficult about that because of our writing reflex. So now you take that and drop it into like the setting you were in and your writing reflex, because you are a natural, normal human being, your writing reflex is going to be triggered.

When information is presented to you, especially if it’s a heinous crime, there’s going to be information that is going to be triggering and then you’re going to hear a different story that provides a different point of view, which could trigger your writing reflex. So now you have internal conflict, which is the nature of ambivalence, which is what motivation helps navigate.

Yes. So I really was able to pull on what I’ve learned from you and motivational interviewing to just keep pulling myself back because this was a tough case. It was criminal. And I thought I’m pretty good. I’m not, I don’t want to say I’m desensitized, but like I said, I, I know a lot of attorneys and. One in particular, I get some, some pretty big details and it’s criminal trials in LA.

It’s, it’s pretty intense. So I’m like, I can handle anything. And the judge said what the case was about and I was like, Oh, it was, I want to say five minutes. It was probably three where I was like, this is the one I’m not sure I can do. I mean, it was the writing reflex or the, the reaction was so strong, but the judge did a wonderful job.

I kept thinking I want Casey to evaluate the judge. Like, I felt like a great job facilitating because he’s like, you wouldn’t be human if you didn’t have a reaction. If you didn’t have biases, if you didn’t, can you put those aside? Can you, you know, and I was like, I got there pretty quick with like, yep.

And do you believe the law is innocent until proven guilty? And I’m like, yes, because all I have is that deep empathy of like, who knows, who knows? I’m going to totally, I am just a sponge here to listen and come up with my own abiding conviction and truth and credibility and all of those different things.

Absolutely. And I think that’s the ability to just try to filter that out is it’s just fascinating and knowing how to an extent, I was going to say knowing how the brain works, but, you know, to the extremely limited extent that I know how the brain works in wrestling with ambivalence, it’s just fascinating the humanity behind it, but then our capacity, which is just amazing to me, our capacity to almost take a meta perspective on our own brain and go, okay, I am feeling triggered by this, but yes, I can be fair.

Yes, I’m getting triggered by this, but I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Yes, I have my bias, but I do want to listen to the facts on both sides and try to be fair. Yes, I have my bias, but I do want to look at what the law says and try to uphold that as an agent of a court and an agent of being respectful to my.

My social peers,  you know, that this is their lives and I want to be respectful to both of their lives or whoever’s lives are involved in this crime. It just, it’s just a chronic state of ambivalence being part of the judicial process. I know it for judges. I know it for prosecutors. I know it for, um.

Corrections officers who I’ve worked with in the prison system,  you know, probation officers after, you know, it’s just parole officers, like it just, it’s a field that generates massive amounts of ambivalence,  massive amounts of ambivalence and massive amounts of social debate as well too.  And so for me, it’s those grounding factors of we, we can pick, this came up a little bit too, and,  in the, be the change training that we’ve done, you can, it’s pretty easy for us to pick one value at the top of the mountain and then get really righteous.

If you’re going to add other values that you have into the equation, it starts to get significantly more complicated. quickly. So if I’m just going to say, I am going to operate from a place of respect, respect, respect, respect, respect, respect, respect, respect. This person needs to be respectful at all costs.

You may not be operating from a place of connection or integrity or even contribution, but boy, you died on the hill of respect. And I see, I see this happen in our culture, our American culture right now, even on a global level as well. Of just around politics and other things as well, too. So, so as soon as you get into something as provocative as the judicial system, again, within the United States or globally, there is no way that is not going to be a provocative conversation with someone it should, because there’s so many strong feelings around justice.

Um. Or the absence of justice in certain countries,  or communities,  or the apps. Yeah, it just, I keep thinking about it in our own country in the United States, just the absence of justice and where there is justice and where people believe that there’s justice is being served because it meets their needs, even if it subverts the law, like it’s just.

It’s such a complex construct and there’s just no way if you’re going to listen to anything seriously, that it’s not going to generate profound ambivalence within us, which means so again, you’re not using motivation for jury duty, but the constructs of human ambivalence and how do we resolve that? At least there is some, again, blueprint for how do I help my brain assure that my behavior.

Is aligning with my values as dimensionally as I have the capacity to, given the circumstances. While also I’ll add a layer to that of understanding everybody else’s values aren’t yours and then you’re in the law and it’s just like. Wow, I think I’m, I’m just, I’m seeing a blue, a new blue ocean opportunity for what you train Casey, because I know you’re in there with all of these different elements of the judicial system.

And like I said, this particular judge, I thought did a fantastic job communicating with everyone.  But what if you were able to get in front of a jury to help judges? Set them up or get in front of more judges to help them be trained in how to communicate to a jury. Because there’s no way jury members understand everything you just shared.

I, I like because of you of like, Oh, this is totally what’s happening. I am grappling right here right now with my own ambivalence. Yes, 2 seconds. Yes. With every new piece of information and just genuinely trying to do the best you can to the best of your ability. Like, every human being is trying to the best they can do the best of their ability, given their circumstances.

You know, just it’s just fascinating. It’s just now that your choices are going to have a profound impact on another human beings life or multiple. No matter what you do, no matter where you fall, no matter where the jury Comes up, it is going to have a profound impact on many, many people, not just the two on opposite benches, you know, it’s just the effect is huge.

Yeah, significantly. And then you get into deliberation. So up until then, sponge, you have jury instructions. It’s the law. Here’s the facts. Here’s the evidence. And of course, here’s. You know, they count on you to use your common sense, your jury of their peers, right? So it’s like, you count on that and your life experiences and common sense to come up with an abiding conviction that you believe and, you know, the validity of somebody’s testimony, that’s something I learned Casey, which was really a great example.

I think of. A total highlighted moment of ambivalence for me, the,  the DA actually was questioning during the selection process and said, innocent until proven guilty, of course, is the defense, right? And it’s until, but the DA is saying, do you understand that you could actually find someone guilty based on the sole testimony of one witness?

And I, and she actually called me out on it and said, sure. You know, my number,  what’s going on in your brain right now. And I’m literally, my ambivalence was, I was like, I did not know that. And the, in my initial reaction was,  alarm. I was like,  I went to empathy for the defendant being potentially wrongly accused by one part, you know?

And so then it was funny hearing other jurors reactions to that too, saying, well, there’d be other other evidence in the prosecutor’s thing. No, no other residents. That’s the law. One person, I was like, Oh, that’s, he said, she said, yes. And then she gave the example of,  a wonderful example, not wonderful, but identifying example of you’re in a room closed room.

Let’s just say it’s a husband and wife. The wife ends up claiming the husband hit her not right away. So there’s no marks. There’s no evidence. Nobody was around for miles. There’s nothing, nothing, but. The wife on the witness stand, if you have an abiding conviction of what she’s saying, you can find, you know, of course, based on the law that he was guilty,  just that.

And I was like, I felt like three days, Casey, where I was really on the struggle bus with that one. Yes. And on the third day I finally went, Oh my gosh. And I was able to see the empathy and the wife going, Oh my God, I would hope if that was me. I would have a course like that. Yes. And this is what’s so one, one person on the juror.

Exactly. Well, and the thing is, it’s so complicated as well too, is because when you’re trying to operate from that level of integrity. It’s hard for your brain not to want to become a prosecutor or a defense attorney or understand the law better or the nuances, and that’s not what a jury of peers would be doing, but your level of integrity is pushing.

You’re like, well, I need to understand a lot. I need to understand this. Maybe I need. Can we get a law book so we can study this? And it’s like, That’s not your job. You know, that’s their job. That’s what they get paid for. That’s what they studied. Your job is to hear it. The law is the law. It’s your job to hear it as a peer and render what you think is a fair verdict based on the facts in front of you.

That’s just, that’s a huge civil duty. I mean, it just, and that’s why I think I know my own, you know, again, writing reflex around is like, that just, I wouldn’t want a. A jury of my peers that think on that level that, you know, and I just think, why would we not grant that to our fellow citizens, you know, on that same level?

So, yeah, this is, this is a topic that can go on forever because of the level of dimensionality is fascinating. Yeah. And then you’re not allowed to talk about anything when you’re doing it. So I’m like, Oh, I got it. I’m like, we’re going to do a podcast. Please get Casey. I want your perspective. I’m like, I’m pretty sure this entire process is riddled with tenants from motivational interviewing.

Yeah. Again. And it’s just that whole thing about how do we navigate ambivalence, you know? And then how do you navigate it in a group, Casey? Cause when you go to deliberate, that’s when it was like, Whoa, you’ve got 12 people. Completely different approaches, completely different ways of thinking, completely different moments of ambivalence to your point, there was a couple that never took their nose out of the binder of jury instructions.

The binders of testimonies that, and it was just, and it was great because they were able to pop out with, oh, there’s a debate happening here. Here’s X, Y in writing. Yes. And that’s not something I would do, you know? So it was, it was fascinating, but everybody’s kind of, oh God, we’re all strangers now, and this is a huge responsibility.

Everybody wants to do it right and well. So it was, it was really interesting navigating all that. So I want to, I think most of all, thank you for what you have been teaching for, for decades now, because I’m just tiny bit of it, Casey, just the past couple of years, and I’m profoundly impacted by the principles you teach and the opportunity for me to be a better human on this planet.

So I really thank you. Oh, thank you. That’s just, yeah, that’s, that’s humbling, especially when we’re talking about human life. It’s very humbling. Absolutely. Yeah. So, all right. Any parting, parting thoughts on this other than everybody?

I think the biggest thing is that,  you know, that I would just make sure that I kind of parted with is that, you know, as a participant, like on jury duty, you’re not using motivational interviewing because you’re not trying to help them resolve their ambivalence. It, but I think of Dr. Miller’s book on second thought,  and that’s just such a profound book on just the dimensionality of ambivalence, just how, you know, multipolar ambivalence can be.

And I think those tenants that, that lean into motivational interviewing. So, you know, being on a jury is not motivational interviewing and. Being deliberating is not motivational interviewing, but having a profound awareness of just the complexity of ambivalence, the polarities of ambivalence,  even more than just bipolar is fascinating.

So yeah, good stuff on second thought. There it is. You have it right there. Fascinating. This for me. So I was just like, I bought it. So I’m excited. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome. Well, thanks Danielle. Thank you. Great to see you, Casey. Everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. I hope, hope this was a value to you.

Please let us know at Casey at IFIOC. com and then let us know if you’d like to join the podcast as well. I look forward to hearing from you. Have an awesome day. Thank you. Awesome.

 Thank you for listening to the communication solution podcast with Casey Jackson and John Gilbert. As always, this podcast is about empowering you on your journey to change the world. So if you have questions, suggestions, or ideas, send them our way at Casey at IFIOC. com. That’s [email protected]. For more information or to schedule a training, visit IFIOC.Com. Until our next communication solution podcast, keep changing the world.