Lots of studies have demonstrated a significant link between jury outcomes and the characteristics of the defendant. But it’s not just the likelihood of conviction, it’s also the sentences imposed — e.g., the more attractive or the more the jury can identify with the defendant, the more lenient the sentence. Additionally, if a conviction is based primarily on a defendant’s outward characteristics and not just the evidence, the jury tends to recommend harsher sentences. There are, of course, exceptions: attractiveness can work against you if a jury perceives that you used it to commit the crime. So, while a beautiful woman might not get convicted of murder, she may have a harder time getting away with a con.
Not much of this would come as a surprise to trial lawyers. That’s why they go through a rigorous process in picking prospective jurors, and will hire jury consultants so they don’t end up screwing themselves and their clients. They will look carefully at the demographic characteristics of each prospective juror, as well as their attitudes, to tip the scales in their favor. Age, ethnicity, gender, education, political/social orientation, degree of religiosity, among others, can determine how a juror is likely to react to a defendant and a specific offense. They will instruct their clients to dress in a certain way and present a certain demeanor because juries will use their appearance to make judgments, irrespective of the evidence.
