Michael Haller and Julie Favreau's collaboration on jury assessment

Michael Haller and Julie Favreau’s collaboration on jury assessment is a recurring professional partnership built on Favreau’s reading of faces and Haller’s use of those observations in court. He hires her to assess prospective and seated jurors, consults her through discreet texts, and makes room for her work even when it must be kept from his client. Their alliance gives Haller another vantage on the jury: one attentive to changes that may escape a lawyer occupied with questioning and argument.

From observation to professional partnership

Favreau’s path into jury consulting began with acting. She had come to Los Angeles by way of London to work in film and studied with a teacher who believed that a character’s inner thoughts could be made visible through facial expressions, tics, and body movements. Her exercises in noticing and interpreting such signs became a method she could apply beyond performance. She practiced reading people in poker rooms and courtrooms, where a face might reveal more than its owner intended.

Haller recruits Favreau

Haller first noticed Favreau in the gallery during a trial in which he was defending an accused serial rapist. She had been there for three days, practicing how to read faces. After asking who she was, Haller learned that she was not a witness or a victim connected to the case; she was an observer developing her skill. He took her to lunch, got her number, and hired her the next time he picked a jury. Her observations proved accurate, and he used her several times afterward. The arrangement grew from a practical test of her eye into an established working relationship: Favreau supplied judgments about people in the box, while Haller decided how those judgments should affect his challenges and courtroom strategy.

A discreet role in the Elliot trial

During Walter Elliot’s trial, Favreau was retained to observe the jury throughout the proceedings. She sat in the fourth row of the gallery and watched during both morning and afternoon sessions, allowing her to follow jurors while Haller was occupied with the demands of the courtroom. At lunch, when Elliot had returned to the studio, Haller let her study his jury chart and make one of her own. She quickly understood his codes and the challenge decisions he was weighing. Her position was therefore not simply that of a distant observer: she could assess the panel independently while working from the same practical framework as the defense.

Haller treated her work as important enough to protect from client interference. When asked how Favreau would be paid, he said the cost could come from general operating funds or his own pocket; he intended to have her help with the final chart regardless of Elliot’s opinion. He asked that the bailiff know her name and ensure she received a seat, and instructed that she remain in the gallery rather than approach him while he was with his client. For significant findings, she could send a text to his cell phone. These arrangements gave Favreau access to the trial without making her a visible part of Haller’s exchanges with Elliot.

Reading the jury together

The partnership was especially active during jury selection. Favreau texted Haller while the lawyers questioned prospective jurors, making quick recommendations about whom to keep or strike. She favored an artist whose answers appeared honest and open-minded, advised against a tree trimmer she considered too eager to serve, and urged Haller to remove another prospective juror if necessary. Her assessments were based on observed behavior as well as spoken answers; eagerness to judge another person, for example, counted against the tree trimmer in Haller’s own evaluation too. The messages allowed the two to compare impressions while Haller remained at the defense table.

Once the trial was underway, Favreau continued to assess the panel’s receptiveness. She saw open faces among jurors who seemed willing to hear the defense, though she recognized their initial predisposition toward the prosecution. Her observations also helped Haller think about where to direct his attention. He noticed that juror seven, who had watched him closely during selection, had stopped making eye contact. Favreau agreed that the change mattered and judged the juror to be aligned with the prosecution, while predicting that the prosecutor would focus on him as Haller addressed juror three. The exchange shows their method at its most precise: a shift in gaze becomes evidence to interpret, then a practical consideration in how counsel presents the case.

Professional trust and personal boundaries

Favreau’s role was a working collaboration rather than an established romance. Lorna Taylor tried to place Haller beside Favreau at a meal, but he was occupied with the trial and said he was not capable of a relationship at that point; rebuilding closeness with his daughter was his priority. That context distinguishes personal matchmaking from the connection actually developed between Haller and Favreau. The evidence of their relationship lies in repeated hiring, shared jury charts, rapid consultation, and Haller’s willingness to arrange payment and access so her observations could continue.

The partnership extends Haller’s view of the jury without replacing his responsibility for the defense. Favreau reads the panel from the gallery; he weighs her impressions against his own observations and makes the legal decisions. In the Elliot trial, the distance between her seat and his table is an advantage rather than a separation: she can watch when his attention is elsewhere, then communicate what she sees in time for him to respond.