… and five minutes later, is sent home. You get the sense that maybe his feelings are a little hurt: the only thing the lawyers knew about him was his being a Harvard economics professor. What’s wrong with that? [%comments]
So Greg Mankiw Walks Into a Jury Box …
TAGS: Greg Mankiw, jury
and 
. You can also watch it on 
They probably picked Mr. Mankiw to walk because educated (read: highly paid) males are more likely to be conservative in regards to tort reform. They will identify more with the company than with the plaintiff.
How did he answer the occupation question? Was it “Esteemed-on-high Chair of Economics at Harvard University”? Or simply, “College Professor”? Or “Professor of Economics”?
He must have made mention of his specialty because I doubt a professor of English or Philosophy would have been cast out.
From what I know about economics, heathcare and policy studies there is this thing of ‘valuing a life’ and when it comes to damages in a malpractice suit, things get tricky and an econ professor is probably less likely to be emotionally manipulated by attorneys into thinking that the decedent was worth millions of dollars in damages just for being a human being. I am pretty sure that he was kicked off by the plaintiff’s attorneys so they could replace him with a juror who is less savvy about money and lifetime earning power which is how damages are partly calculated.
Having a less rational juror in his stead is someone to whom you can spoonfeed a damage number because all those zeroes don’t actually mean anything to someone who isn’t numbers-savvy.
I have my undergraduate degree from Johns Hopkins… twice now I have been called to jury duty and was not selected for a case involving medical malpractice… suprise! I was not selected both times… now that I am in law school I will never be selected again.
Previous posters have commented on several issues that clearly are at play:
1) Lawyers want jurors who can be manipulated. While manipulated is a strong word, lawyers do want someone who is prone to being convinced easily. A Harvard economist, or anyone with an advanced degree for that matter, does not fit that mold.
2) Lawyers want jurors who are not likely to apply logic to the award of monetary damages. If someone can easily calculate actual damages as well as reasonably calculate damages for lost opportunity they are a liability for both the plaintiff and defendant.
3) Lawyers want jurors who have a particular sense for monitarily “making a person whole.” Within the legal community there has been great concern, yet little in the way of actual data, about the current economic situation and how it alters jury awards. I.e. will a jury feel sympathetic in these tough times to a plaintiff who has been harmed, or will a jury understand the financial impact upon a corporation that is pelted with a multi-million dollar slip-and-fall award. Again, an economist is more likely to think about the impact a damage award against a company/doctor might have (layoffs to counteract damages?).
I could go on but those are the first three that come to my mind when a economist participates in voir dire.
SwingDaddy –
That is ridiculous. We all know the government genetically breeds a small group of really dumb people that are kept in an old atomic bunker, just so ‘all’ the rest of us can be above average.
As for Prof. Mankiw. only the highly intelectual assume nothing can be determined by physical appearance. The art of jury selection indicates even the lawyers are not sure why he was sent home.
Case = Medical Malpractice
Economist = Hyper-irritable and reason based on self interest as opposed to public interest.(as per link above)
Lawyers = Manipulative and interested in creating results for their clients.
Therefore, it was probably a medical malpractice case where the doctor did not run further of testing on an individual because the cost of doing so was expensive and would have needed to be paid for through public funds that the doctor was philosophically opposed to.
The lawyers reasoned that since the professor was from Harvard, he would be a stereotypical left wing bleeding heart liberal in favor of such public funds and testing for anyone who might in the slightest degree possibly benefit.
The Lawyers, however, failed to reason that the professor, while although from Harvard, was an economics professor and therefore, as stated in the” whats wrong with that” link above, more likely to actually understand the doctors point of view.
What type of jurors a lawyer wants depends on the nature of the case.
One of the realities of a juror like Prof. Mankiw is that he is likely to be highly influential over the other jurors.
If I was going to make a technical argument based on logic then Mankiw is exactly the type of juror that I would want because he would understand the argument and the other jurors who did not understand would probably defer to him.
We do not know which side black balled Mankiw. It might have been the hospital for fear that a smart guy like Mankiw would hold the doctor to a “Harvard” level of intelligence and professionalism.
Mankiw shouldn’t be surprised for reasons that are both already mentioned and, well, pretty obvious. But did the lawyers have time to google Greg before they questioned him? If they did, then it’s even more obvious why he was kicked.
Lawyers are similarly known for disqualifying engineers from juries.
I’ve seen arguments that, generally speaking, those more likely to have good critical thinking skills are objectionable to one side or the other. Or both.