MovieChat Forums > Bull (2016) Discussion > Its not jury consultancy that wins the c...

Its not jury consultancy that wins the cases in the end


Think about it.

Episode 1 - they managed to get the kid to admit he is gay thus creating an alibi (sort of)

Episode 2 - they managed to make the pilot justify her actions

Neither of these has anything to do with the jury, its a side investigation resulting in new facts that saved the clients. For proper jury tampering there should be no new information added, they work with what they got and spin that.

Bull is an investigator, not a "jury consultant."

reply

Actually, in looking at the needs of the jury, it gave them some direction for any kind of investigation they wished to make.

Without knowing the "alpha" female juror, the one who could sway others, had (a) prior problems with the judicial system letting down her son and (b) knowing her son was gay, they may not have pursued Brandon's sexuality, and discovered that it actually gave him a alibi for the murder. Same with the pilot, without understanding the intense gender bias all the mock juries felt, they would not have pursued a way to exonerate her, make her actually a hero and not incompetent.

I don't mind the investigations so much, as long as the focus on the jury is what directs their investigation.

I agree, that is not *really* what a jury consultant necessarily does. But it makes for a more interesting, tighter story.

Now, if we just figure out how it is paid for.....and no, that really bugs me. How can one have an entire show about an independent contractor that obviously spends millions of dollars but doesn't obviously *have* a million dollars of client money to spend. That is a complete disconnect.

reply

But no issues with the clearly stated illegal actions of emo hacker girl to 1) "hack" into the school HR system to look at confidential personnel files and 2) "hack" into the blogger's website and post stories helping the defendant?

That is classified as cybercrime regardless of the intent.

http://cybercrime-defense.whocanisue.com/hacking-considered-cyber-crime/

Not to mention, jury pools are maintained by the clerk, and "jury consultants" would not know until the names are pulled on that day who they were and would not be able to pull on-the-spot information on those individuals.

reply

The hacker really bothers me, especially since this is a *law* based show.

The OP discussed the investigations in the show. My point was that the investigation didn't bother me since it followed the actual premise of the show; it was based on finding a way to get the jury on their side.

I don't really consider hacking investigating. I find it, as you do, illegal and out of place in a jury consultant business. That's not using your 3 PhD's, that's breaking the law.

reply

No worries, I wasn't questioning your omission, but dog-piling on the rabbit.

Hacking isn't investigating at all, it is clearly illegal and has no place in this fantasy world of instantly available information.

reply

The judges can and quite often do release the names of the jury pool before the start of the trial. The show was correct on that.

http://www.litigationinsights.com/jury-selection-process/jury-list-in-advance-trial-important/

reply

Fair enough. So they can illegally hack HR systems to steal confidential personnel files and post on other people's blogs in advance and even DURING jury selection! Sweet!

reply