These were things that I found influenced you in favor of the plaintiff (after going back and trying to find all of them):
- Blue collar
- 30 or older
- Household income < 50k
- employed part time/unemployed
- social services, left-leaning causes
- don't like puzzles or games w/ rules/concentration
The last 4 are about how likely you are to influence other jurors, which increases your risk score.
Oh wait, I forgot about that one. I did have one that went towards the plaintiff and it was being an old fart. D'oh. But I still wound up with the "The Defense lawyer now loves you" message at some point. Heh.
the points given for being over 30 doesn't help much at all. Frivolous lawsuits & being involved in "Social services, health, mental health" appear to be the big deal.
I think there are frivolous lawsuits and I am involved in social causes. The defense lawyer still loves me, even if I change those answers. But I'm solidly in the defense's ballpark with under 30, high salary, white collar, puzzles... already.
It's a bit disappointing, given that at face value I'm very sympathetic to the plaintiff (think the parent/family/long term "that could be me" angle) and I'd consider siding with her except in specific cases such as one where she willingly agreed to high-risk investments.
This is what I think is going on: in a case like this, there's probably no actual crime (as defined by law), because investing is inherently risky, and therefore losing money is normal. You, as a scientific-minded individual with a basic knowledge of economy, will only convict the adviser if there's actual proof of mismanagement. I'd bet that, in the average case, it would be rather hard for a typical 60 y.o. woman to get evidence of that (assuming there is such a thing). If you said "yes" to the "too many frivolous suits" question, you would be easily conviced that the woman has no real argument, but is suing anyway.
Also, from the "do you like crosswords" question, if you say "no" you get this:
> This is a question about your cognitive style. The plaintiff lawyer believes you may be more likely to respond to the plaintiff's more emotional theme of victimhood rather than looking deeply at the legal and financial details.
I read that as "we don't really have a case, but if our jury identifies with the old woman, they may rule in her favor out of compassion".
What commonly happens is the investor gives authority to the broker to make trading decisions. Then the broker frequently trades to make commissions on each trade, until the money inevitably dwindles to the point where the customer realizes it was a scam. The broker acted legally but opposite the best interests of the client.
I was told that I would side with defendant based on my answers, but to be honest. The fact that it is a 60 year old woman giving $200,000 to manage it makes me think I would be siding with plaintiff.
The most common scenario in this situation is that investment adviser did not make her aware with risks. Someone at that age generally would not want to risk everything they had.
Of course if it is obvious that she was aware of the risks associated with it and the adviser was honest then I would side with him.
I believe the point of jury is to rule in a way that seems most sensible (based on ethics and not necessarily having to agree with the law).
Uhhhhh. There wasn't a single thing that sided me with the plaintiff. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.