Commercial Litigation Attorney in Scottsdale, Arizona
Do you prefer to try cases before a judge or a jury?
Do you prefer to try cases before a judge or a jury?
More In This Category
View Transcript
Contact Daryl M. Williams
Email This Lawyer
(602) 256-9400
See All This Lawyer's Videos
Visit Lawyer's Website
Scottsdale, AZ commercial litigation attorney Daryl Williams discusses whether he prefers to try cases before a judge or a jury. He explains that he prefers to bring his cases before a jury rather than leaving them solely in the hands of a judge. In his view, judges often carry confirmation biases—perspectives on the law and preconceived notions that can influence their factual findings or perceptions of the lawyers and the case itself. By contrast, a jury offers the collective judgment of a group, which he finds far more reliable than the decision of a single individual.
With a jury, he believes it is possible to win cases that might otherwise seem unwinnable. After several weeks of trial, jurors are often overwhelmed by the complexity of the evidence. If he is able to present a consistent narrative that they trust, they are more likely to decide in his favor. In lengthy trials, he observes, jurors sometimes make their decision based not on the case itself but on which lawyer they believe.
He recalls one particular matter against the largest law firm in Phoenix, which involved a dispute over royalties tied to a patented agricultural procedure. The opposing party was an international corporation engaged in managing cotton farming worldwide, providing guidance on water usage, pesticides, and other crop management practices. The company had purchased his client’s program with a promise of royalties but never implemented it, instead shelving the program.
The corporation offered to settle the dispute for $750,000 prior to trial, but he proceeded before a jury. The verdict resulted in a $14 million judgment for his client.
After the trial, several jurors sought to speak with him. While he generally places little weight on post-trial discussions—believing jurors often tell lawyers what they want to hear—one juror made a memorable comment. She admitted that much of the case felt complicated, but she voted for him because she appreciated how well his shirts were pressed each day, assuming his wife prepared them. In truth, he later explained, the shirts were cleaned professionally; his wife had never ironed them.
This interaction, he notes, underscores the varying levels of juror comprehension. While some jurors, particularly the foreperson, tend to grasp the complexities of a case, others may base their impressions on peripheral details. For this reason, he emphasizes the importance of tailoring arguments to the leaders of the jury panel—the individuals most likely to shape the group’s ultimate decision.
