• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Jury Instructions

Plain English Jury Instructions Are Like A Breath of Fresh Air After A Long Trial.

24 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Jury Instructions, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Readability, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Plain English Jury Instructions Are Like A Breath of Fresh Air After A Long Trial.

Tags

Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Jury instructions, Persuasive Litigator, Plain English, Trial Tips & Techniques

Embrace Plain English Jury Instructions, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator

http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2015/03/embrace-plain-english-instructions-and-plain-english-persuasion.html

I often play the role of the ‘judge’ during a mock trial. In that capacity, I have the pleasure of reading the legal instructions to the mock jurors just before they deliberate. While I’m droning on about ‘preponderance,’ and ‘proximate cause,’ and making the plaintiff ‘whole,’ I am often met with quizzical looks as the jurors grapple with the language. Some have even made a vain attempt to raise their hands to ask a question. I sometimes wish I could explain, ‘Look, my point is not for you to understand this… it is just to be realistic.’ And, too often, what is realistic is for the instructions to be dense at best and incomprehensible at worst. ’Jury instructions are written by lawyers,’ the American Judicature Society points out, ‘and are often filled with legal language whose meaning is not apparent to those without legal training.’ . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Listen To The Jurors.

29 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Criminal Law, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Murder, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Listen To The Jurors.

Tags

Capivated: The Trials of Pamela Smart, Documentary, HBO, Juror 13, Jurors, Jury Trials, Media Coverage, Murder, Post-Trial, Reasonable Doubt, To Die For

Listen to Jurors, Especially to Juror #13 From Pamela Smart Trial. by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, The Persuasive Litigator

http://tinyurl.com/k9sh7pw

There is a new documentary in current rotation on HBO and it’s one that trial lawyers and other legal junkies will want to watch. Captivated: The Trials of Pamela Smart provides a detailed look at the 1991 trial of the New Hampshire school employee who was tried and convicted for accessory to murder in a case that later become the inspiration for the movie To Die For starring Nicole Kidman. According to prosecutors, Smart seduced one of the students and then recruited him to murder her husband. What separates Captivated from other sensationalized post-trial documentaries is that it takes a very informed and critical look at the media’s influence on trials, and also includes a very unique running commentary from one of the jurors, number 13, who provides her own reactions to the case as it unfolded: real-time comments that she spoke into her own tape recorder after every trial day. The result ends up providing a remarkable view into the continuous reactions of a sitting juror. As O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark remarked in a review in Forbes, ‘The insights provided by this articulate, intelligent juror are the most fascinating, and at the same time unsettling, part of the story.’

Fascinating, because what you’re hearing is a conscientious and thoughtful juror attempting to work through the testimony as it is presented. Unsettling, because it is clear that the media along with the force of a popular presumption of guilt also played a role in this case. Commenting on a ‘media circus’ that made her and the other jurors ‘feel like a bug in a glass jar,’ she nonetheless tries to reach a verdict free from that pressure. Whether she and the other jurors succeeded is one of the central questions posed by the documentary, and viewers are able to draw their own conclusions. As I watched it the other night, a few thoughts occurred to me that carry relevance not only for that jury trial, but for most or all jury trials.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Lots and Lots of Jury Instructions.

29 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Jury Instructions, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Lots and Lots of Jury Instructions.

Tags

Center for Jury Studies, Jury Communication, Jury instructions, Jury Persuasion, LanguageandLaw.org, Peter Meijes Tiersma, Plain Language, Trial Tips & Techniques

The Language Of Jury Instructions, by Peter Meijes Tiersma, LanguageandLaw.org

http://tinyurl.com/qy9z2rv

Lots of information and examples on jury instructions, including a Manual on Communicating with Juries, links to criminal and civil jury instructions, to plain language jury instructions, to jury instructions for specific states, and more. If you need help writing jury instructions, this would be a good place to start. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Juries and Social Labeling.

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Closing Argument, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Juries and Social Labeling.

Tags

Closing Argument, Jill D. Schmid Ph.D., Jury Persuasuion, Opening Argument, Social Labeling, Trial Tips & Techniques, Tsongas® Blog

“Everyday is a Great Day!” Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Social Labeling, by Jill D. Schmid Ph.D., Tsongas® Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ljah59y

‘Everyday is a great day!’ That’s what he said, and appeared to believe with every fiber of his body. He was a 20-something, male clerk in an airport hotel’s gift shop. My response to, ‘How are you today?’ paled in comparison. ‘Oh, alright,’ I said as I contemplated what was about to be a very long research day. I didn’t expect to have a philosophical discussion that morning, but after what he said, I couldn’t help but ask his secret.  He looked so content, so convincing, so . . . what’s the word?  Oh yeah, happy.

So I asked, and his answer stuck with me.  He said about five years earlier he found himself in a tough spot; he was making poor choices; he was unhappy and making others around him unhappy. He decided to change his life, and he would do it by simply declaring that every day was special, that ‘everyday is a great day!’ He said from that point on, his attitude changed and he noticed that others’ attitudes also changed.  He found that when he’d tell people that, they smiled and seemed a bit lighter, less stressed. I felt the same – his answer had reminded me that I should be focusing on the positive; that I should be thankful to have a job that allows me to have interesting and challenging conversations nearly every day; that I should be looking forward to interacting with a whole new group of people – people who had important things to say and from whom I would learn a lot. In short, it really was about to be a great day, and I needed to change my attitude.

I was reminded of this encounter during a recent jury selection.  While I typically believe it’s somewhat of a waste of time to elicit ‘promises’ from your potential jurors (i.e., ‘Do you promise that you’ll give my client a fair shake?’ ‘Do you promise that you’ll follow all of the judge’s instructions?’ ‘Do you promise to not let your sympathies influence your decision?”), this attorney took a similar, but improved tack. His questions, and subsequent labeling of the jurors, utilized a well-researched phenomenon called ‘social labeling.’ . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Apologizing Even When It’s Not Your Client’s Fault.

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Damages, Defense Counsel, Direct Examination, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Litigation, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Settlement, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Apologizing Even When It’s Not Your Client’s Fault.

Tags

Damages, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Judges, Jurors, Persuasive Litigator Blog, Settlement, Trial Tips & Techniques

Show You’re Sorry, Even When You’re Not at Fault, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ntvjm5r

[A]s we’ve noted before, letting jurors, judges, and opposing parties hear an apology can be effective when you are responsible, or are likely to be found responsible, for at least part of the damage at issue in the case. But what about when you’re not? Does that second kind of “sorry,” meaning “I recognize your loss, but without accepting responsibility for it” create a persuasive advantage as well?

According to some new research, yes, it does. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Jury Nullification Secret Sneaking Out Of The Bag.

16 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Litigation, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Jury Nullification Secret Sneaking Out Of The Bag.

Tags

CGP Grey video, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Juries, Jury Trials, Litigation, Nullification, Persuasive Litigator Blog, The Law You Won't Be Told, Trial Tips & Techniques

Treat Nullification as a Known Option, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator

http://perma.cc/HWG4-PKHK

Jury nullification is treated as a deep and dangerous secret. The idea that a jury can decide to follow its own moral guidance instead of following the law, is the legal doctrine that dare not speak its name, at least not anywhere near a courtroom. It’s been used as ammo in the war against the drug war, led to accusations of jury tampering, and even served as the basis for a criminal indictment of a retired professor who made it a practice to hand out pamphlets about nullification in front of courthouses. As stories like these become more well-known, the official secret of jury nullification might be turning into something more like an open secret. Based on the viral success of a recent video by CPG Grey — more than 1.5 million viewers in the first month it’s been up — the knowledge of nullification might be well on the way to becoming more common than ever. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Google Mistrials – A Continuing Problem.

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Internet, Juror Impeachment, Jury Instructions, Mistrials, Research, Rule 606, Trial Tips and Techniques, Verdict

≈ Comments Off on Google Mistrials – A Continuing Problem.

Tags

Bob Kalinowski, citizensvoice.com, Colin Miller, Eastern District of North Carolina, EvidenceProg Blog, Federal Rules of Evidence, Google Mistrial, Juror Impeachment, Jury instructions, Jury Trials, Litigation, Mistrials, Rule 606(b)

Stealing the Verdict: Eastern District of North Carolina Allows Jury Impeachment Regarding Internet Research, by Colin Miller, EvidenceProg Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mkk48a8

“Google mistrials” have been a problem for some time. Here are two examples – one in 2014 and another in 2011 — in which a juror used Internet legal research during the trial and discussed it with fellow jurors, causing a mistrial. -CCE

An emerging problem in the American justice system is jurors conducting internet research about a case, leading to the Google mistrial. And, when such research is not discovered until after trial, as in United States v. LaRoque, 2014 WL 683729 (E.D.N.C. 2012), it leads to jury impeachment.

 Mistrial by Internet A Growing Concern, By Bob Kalinowski (Staff Writer), citizensvoice.com

 http://tinyurl.com/mge3nqk

Legal experts have coined them ‘Google mistrials.’

Curious jurors seeking to conduct their own research surf the Internet about facts presented in court, bringing a halt to important court cases and tainting the outcome.

Sometimes it’s done unwittingly. Other times it’s done against a judge’s specific directions.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Intolerance Is A Door That Swings Both Ways When Presenting Your Case.

17 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witness Preparation, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Intolerance Is A Door That Swings Both Ways When Presenting Your Case.

Tags

Conservatives, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Judges, Juries, Liberals, Persuasive Litigator, Politics, Trial Tips and Techniques

Account for Ideological Intolerance, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator™

http://tinyurl.com/kovy8wo

It’s Valentine’s time again. It’s a holiday of love, but in the political world, we’re moving out of yet another debt ceiling standoff and there is no love lost between the two sides of the spectrum. Liberals point to yet another, albeit failed, attempt to hold the country’s full faith and credit hostage, while conservatives point to yet another increase in an already staggering national debt. Neither side can understand the values, arguments, and priorities of the other. And that’s just the debt. Add in social welfare programs, marriage equality, and — as the actual sign from an Arizona gun shop above testifies — gun control, and you’ve got a pretty bitter divide. Polling shows that we are politically more ‘tribal’ than ever before. As we’ve noted in earlier posts, liberals and conservatives appear to use their brains differently when assessing risk, and are resistant to applying basic empathy across the political aisles. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Jury Consultant’s Voir Dire Tips.

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Peremptory Challenges, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Jury Consultant’s Voir Dire Tips.

Tags

Edward P. Schwartz, Hung Juries, Jury Consulting, Jury Selection, Jury Trials, Lawyers USA, Peremptory Challenges, Supplemental Juror Questionnaires, THE JURY BOX, Voir Dire, Voir Dire Questionnaires

Indirect Questions Reap Most Information in Oral Voir Dire, by Edward P. Schwartz, THE JURY BOX

http://tinyurl.com/lvbx2pz

In reviewing the traffic on my website recently, I was struck by how much more often one particular article was accessed than any other. I used to write a column on trial strategy for Lawyers USA (formerly Lawyers Weekly USA), and this particular article on voir dire strategy from 2006 seems to be very popular, even today. So, in the spirit of giving the public what it wants, here is that article in its entirety.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Framing Your Legal Arguments To Persuade.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, First Amendment, Jury Instructions, Legal Writing, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Framing Your Legal Arguments To Persuade.

Tags

A&E, Chris Kluwe, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Duck Dynasty, Free Speech, Minnesota Vikings, Persuasive Litigator, Phil Robertson, Trial Tips and Techniques

Frame It As “Freedom with Consequences,” by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator

http://tinyurl.com/mvb6qjy

Ducks and Vikings have been prominent recently on the free expression front of the culture wars. The ‘Duck’ would be Duck Dynasty’s reality star Phil Robertson, who’s recent comments on homosexuality and race caused his network, A & E, to briefly suspend him from the show. The ‘Viking’ would be former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who was released by the team after controversy following an editorial he wrote in favor of marriage equality. While Kluwe lost his job and Robertson kept his, the similarity in the cases is that both were framed in the public sphere as a question of free expression. But it is less the question of whether Robertson and Kluwe have free speech, but whether they have freedom from the employment consequences of that speech.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Better Trial Messages to the Jury.

02 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Closing Argument, Jury Instructions, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Better Trial Messages to the Jury.

Tags

Cambridge, Chunking, Closing Argument, Daniel Bor, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Opening Argument, Persuasive Litigator, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

Chunk Your Trial Message, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator

http://tinyurl.com/jvum7kj

Dr. Broda-Bahm provides excellent ideas for litigators on how to “chunk” their trial messages. -CCE

 Give me the bite-sized version, break it down into pieces, and tell it to me step-by-step. The brain loves to segment, and the process known as “chunking” seems to be a central part of how we recognize patterns, manage information, and form new insights. A recent perspective on the process is articulated by Cambridge neuroscientist Daniel Bor in his book, The Ravenous Brain (2012).

[I]t is one thing for the attorney to get that structure, and it is another thing for her listeners to get it just as well. Litigators and other communicators often believe that they’re breaking things down based on a clear, explicit, and meaningful structure, but their audience instead simply experiences a continuous and unbroken flow of information or arguments. Here are a few rules of thumb for making sure you’re actually chunking when you think you’re chunking:

  • It has to be simple (which usually means flat, without substructure, and limited to a manageable number of main points).

  • It has to be explicit (which usually means actually saying something like, “First point,” “Second point,” and “Third point”).

  • It usually should be previewed (“Tell them before you tell them,” unless you having a strategic reason for preserving a surprise).

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

American Jury System – The Optimal Jury Trial Videos

01 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Experts, Jury Instructions, Jury Selection, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on American Jury System – The Optimal Jury Trial Videos

Tags

American Jury Section, Judges, Jury, Jury instructions, Jury Selection, Jury trial

Favorite Thing: American Jury System – The Optimal Jury Trial Videos, submitted by Susie Macpherson of NJP Litigation Consulting, ASTC Member Trial Consultants from The Jury Expert
http://perma.cc/0Z3TkwVQy6Z

Impressive collection of resources for judges and attorneys. CCE

These videos are a great resource for attorneys and judges who want to investigate any of these topics, or for those who need ‘hands on’ examples to encourage other judges and attorneys to implement new procedures.”

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

During Trial, Court Should Have Admonished Jury Not to Google Plaintiff’s Lawyer Rather than Ordering Removal of Verdict Successes from Attorney’s Website

01 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in First Amendment, Jury Instructions, Law Firm Web Sites, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Marketing, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on During Trial, Court Should Have Admonished Jury Not to Google Plaintiff’s Lawyer Rather than Ordering Removal of Verdict Successes from Attorney’s Website

Tags

Censorship, First Amendment, Jury instructions, Law Firm Websites

Jurors Might Google Law Firm’s Website, but Judge Can’t Censor It During Trial, by Scott Graham, The Recorder (with hat tip to Allen Mihecoby, CLAS, RP® on LinkedIn)

http://perma.cc/0UvXPVmc3Fg

[T]the decision sets new boundaries in an area of increasing concern for trial attorneys and judges: the balance between attorney free speech rights and potential jury contamination in a networked world.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 456 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: