Verified by 
The name of this blog, "Science of Small Talk," derives from the notion that even the most mundane of social interactions has something to tell us about human nature. That a scientific lens can be turned on even the most banal of daily conversations in the effort to better understand how people think and why we do what we do. What better way to explore this idea than by considering a situation where a simple question of word choice had implications both far-reaching and truly life-altering?
It was one year ago today that an extraordinary (and extraordinarily rare) legal hearing began in a Massachusetts courtroom on Cape Cod. Called back into the same courtroom where they had sat in judgment of a murder case more than a year earlier, 14 jurors appeared individually before the trial judge to answer questions about aspects of their deliberations. Specifically, the hearing was intended to explore the possibility, raised by a defense motion, that racially biased statements had been made by several jurors during deliberations, and that these comments had prevented the defendant, a Black man, from receiving a fair trial.
It was a fascinating legal and social development for several reasons. First, jury deliberation rooms are a lot like Vegas–what happens in deliberation stays in deliberation. It's highly unusual, albeit not completely unprecedented, for jurors to be called back into court months later to report on what happened as they decided the case.
Second, the questions the trial judge had to consider in evaluating the defense motion quite literally required him to parse the science of small talk. He had to determine, for example, when a racial descriptor uttered in conversation is just that, a descriptor, and when its conveyance indicates something more nefarious and legally problematic, like racial bias.
And of course, even more noteworthy was that one individual's freedom, the sanctity of a murder conviction, and a sense of justice for the family of a crime victim were all on the line as well.
But to really set the context for last year's hearing in Barnstable Superior Court, a hearing at which I testified as an expert witness, you have to go back at least five years prior. Because the chain of events that led to this highly unusually post-trial hearing are noteworthy in and of themselves. One might go so far as to say you could write a book about the murder of Christa Worthington (left) in Truro, Massachusetts in 2002. Actually, someone already has. And others continue with plans to do the same. So I trust you'll forgive me the largess of telling this story serially instead of squeezing it all into one brief blog post.
Worthington came from a wealthy New England family and her successful career as a fashion journalist led to stints in New York as well as Paris. But in January of 2002 she was found stabbed in the chest, dead in her own kitchen, the victim of the first homicide in the town of Truro in three decades. Her two-year-old daughter was rescued at the scene, physically unharmed. By some media accounts, when found she was covered in her mother's blood and heartbreakingly clutching at the body.
The case had all the makings of sensational drama. A well-educated, successful, even glamorous victim from a well-known family. A cast of potential suspects true to the colorful character of seafaring Cape Cod. Add in some sexual intrigue and infidelity, and it become easy to forget that this was a real human tragedy, not a made-for-TV drama.
That didn't stop Dateline NBC from coming to film a segment. 48 Hours did the same. The mystery of who killed Christa Worthington captured attention in New England and beyond as it went unsolved for 3 years.
That's what made the next development in this story all the more shocking. When the break finally came in the case, a new character was introduced to the drama that no one had seen coming. And a new chapter of the saga began, one in which questions surrounding race and the possibility of racial bias in our justice system took an unwelcome, yet central role.
At the end of the day, a trial judge would ultimately have to make a decision regarding the real-world consequences of informal conversations.
TO BE CONTINUED...
