As the Colorado theater shooting trial comes to a close, all eyes will be on the jury as it sets out to determine whether James Holmes was legally sane three years ago when he set off tear gas grenades and shot into the audience with multiple firearms killing 12 people and injuring 70 others. The Judge has been contemplating what to tell the lawyers and jurors about talking to the media after a verdict has been rendered.

The law typically sides with the press and the First Amendment even when it might appear to tug away at the right to a fair trial. The latter is sometimes invoked to shed light on the notion that if jury deliberations are aired after a verdict (and the jurors know about this in advance) then a juror with an opposing viewpoint, say a lone dissenter in favor of acquittal, may not fight for his or her position as strongly if they know they will get scrutinized after the verdict. [As an aside, the lone holdout in the Etan Patz hung jury trial where there was an 11-1 vote in favor of conviction did not shy away from the media afterwards and stood by his opposing vote.] Related, some say the sanctity of jury deliberations should never be violated in any way and that there should be some protections about what can be revealed about deliberations after a verdict is rendered. Judges, especially in federal court, often tell attorneys not to contact jurors after a verdict. Jurors, however, are typically free to discuss the deliberation process and when they do it is probably the most instructive method available for us to learn about how our system of justice operates.

For starters, from my interviews with hundreds upon hundreds of jurors after serving on a case, I believe they find talking to the press or parties or Judge to be cathartic – jurors usually want to talk, vent, and release a little, which provides psychological relief through open expression. Sometimes it is hard to get them to stop talking. On a phone interview earlier this year I asked a juror for 10 minutes of his time and he spoke for 45 minutes. And if you think about it, it makes sense why jurors love to talk. They are told not to talk about the case throughout trial, then are read lengthy and often confusing jury instructions, and they then talk about the case with fellow jurors while trying to arrive at a unanimous or close to unanimous decision. It is not always easy. Rancor sometimes creeps in, as does frustration and peer pressure. But after reaching a verdict, jurors have a comfortable controlled environment in which to disclose anything they choose to. Good attorneys take advantage of this willingness to talk, as they should. I am dumbfounded when an attorney says they don’t want to talk to jurors after a case because the case is over with. Big mistake.

Talking to jurors makes attorneys understand where they went wrong, or right. I always tell clients to talk to jurors even if they won the case. The jury may have sided with their client but for different reasons than the team anticipated. It is always good to ask jurors what they liked and didn’t like about the process. Most jurors usually say the attorneys spoke too much and wasted too much time. This is shockingly universal feedback. Jurors also tend to like the Judge. When jurors give feedback on witnesses, it helps for future cases when the attorneys have to assess which witness(es) to use and most strongly tie their case to.

When a verdict is announced we all know the end result. But how jurors arrived there is of equally tremendous value. Asking jurors open-ended questions such as how did the jury reach their conclusion, what were key turning points, and what additional questions they have about the case, etc., empowers jurors to speak. And when they do they invariably provide feedback that is insightful, candid, interesting, and even strategic as preparation for the next trial has already begun.