Empirical Creative was paid about $300,000, the people familiar with the situation say, for services that included a mock trial, during which his lawyers employed two main defense themes: that the information prosecutors said involved illegal inside tips was already public, and that the government’s witnesses weren’t credible. During the mock trial, the consultants discovered, the jurors most receptive to those themes were those without advanced-education degrees or financial sophistication and with relatively low- to middle-income jobs. Mock jurors who were members of ethnic minority groups also were more sympathetic to Mr. Rajaratnam, who was born in Sri Lanka, their research found, according to the people familiar with the situation. The real jury reflected those findings in many respects. [WSJ]

20 comments (hidden to protect delicate sensibilities)
Show all comments ↓

Comments (20)

  1. Posted by DSK lawer | May 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM

    Please, send me a list of registered sex offenders, ASAP. Need to select jury for my client.
     –DSK lawer

  2. Posted by DSK lawer | May 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM

    Please, send me a list of registered sex offenders, ASAP. Need to select jury for my client.
     –DSK lawer

  3. Posted by Guest | May 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I hereby request a refund on the $300,000 paid to your agency; the services rendered did not meet the specifications requested.  Please find the receipt enclosed.

    Yours, &c.
    R. R.

  4. Posted by Guest | May 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I hereby request a refund on the $300,000 paid to your agency; the services rendered did not meet the specifications requested.  Please find the receipt enclosed.

    Yours, &c.
    R. R.

  5. Posted by Guess | May 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM

    these consultants suck. a juror with gout would have voted to acquit. 

  6. Posted by Guess | May 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM

    these consultants suck. a juror with gout would have voted to acquit. 

  7. Posted by Comment Parse error | May 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM

    It was that pinky that did him in.

  8. Posted by Comment Parse error | May 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM

    It was that pinky that did him in.

  9. Posted by Guest | May 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM

    I really like the “most receptive” language.  Next company memo will put emphasis on the fact that we don’t look for “dumbshit suckers” anymore, just institutions who are most receptive to our valuation techniques.

  10. Posted by Guest | May 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM

    I really like the “most receptive” language.  Next company memo will put emphasis on the fact that we don’t look for “dumbshit suckers” anymore, just institutions who are most receptive to our valuation techniques.

  11. Posted by Terry Beck | May 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM

     so sumb uneducated jurors are easiest to fool, no surprise there really.

  12. Posted by Terry Beck | May 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM

     so sumb uneducated jurors are easiest to fool, no surprise there really.

  13. Posted by Guest | May 18, 2011 at 4:55 PM

    ooo, except that they weren’t? since they found him guilty on all counts?

  14. Posted by Guest | May 18, 2011 at 4:55 PM

    ooo, except that they weren’t? since they found him guilty on all counts?

  15. Posted by I wanna refund | May 18, 2011 at 5:22 PM

    Worst defense ever.  Seriously fucking embarrasing.

  16. Posted by I wanna refund | May 18, 2011 at 5:22 PM

    Worst defense ever.  Seriously fucking embarrasing.

  17. Posted by InsiderorPonzi | May 18, 2011 at 6:05 PM

    Note to self…. my next criminal lawyers must have hair, eyebrows, personality, and be Jewish and from NYC.

    RR

    -

  18. Posted by Hunter S. Thompson | May 18, 2011 at 6:15 PM

     In a closed society like hedge funds, where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught.

  19. Posted by Rhymes4ourtimes | May 18, 2011 at 9:06 PM

    Jury consultants’ losses and gains-
    They picked the jury-but NOT their brains.

    http://rhymes4ourtimes.com 

  20. Posted by eddy | May 19, 2011 at 1:34 AM

    Their error was failing to test the impact on a jury of normal-looking prosecutors vs a lead defence attorney resembling a sack of old potato mash.