Category Archives: Implied Bias

Understand Group Psychology Patterns for Winning Trial Strategy.

21 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Implied Bias, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Understand Group Psychology Patterns for Winning Trial Strategy.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Group Psychology, Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Jury Deliberations, by Ken Lopez, The Litigation Consulting Report

http://tinyurl.com/nugn68v

Since first being exposed to the group psychology work of Wilfred Bion 15 years ago, I’ve been completely fascinated by it. I think his theories perfectly explain the behavior of every group that I’ve ever encountered. From boards that I sit on to groups on reality TV shows, they all behave in the same predictable ways, especially when placed under pressure. . . . [Emphasis added.]

Continue reading →

How Juror With Ties To Defendants’ Law Firm Stayed On The Jury.

10 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Implied Bias, Jury Selection, Peremptory Challenges, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on How Juror With Ties To Defendants’ Law Firm Stayed On The Jury.

Tags

, , , , ,

Motion to Strike Potential Juror Represented by Law Firm Involved Denied, by Daniel E. Cummins, TortTalk Blog

(Source for Mr. Cummins post: “Panel Upholds Decision Not to Strike Juror With Ties to Firm” by P.J. D’Annunzio of The Legal Intelligencer (June 3, 2015).)

http://www.torttalk.com/2015/06/motion-to-strike-potential-juror.html

In the non-precedential Pennsylvania Superior Court case of DeFrancesco v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 742 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. May 26, 2015 Panella, Olson, Fitzgerald, J.J.) (slip op. by Fitzgerald, J.), the appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision not to strike a juror from a medical malpractice case during voir dire even though the juror was a client of the same firm representing defendants in the case. . . .

Continue reading →

Jury Persuasion For Mixed Gender Message Delivery.

13 Saturday Dec 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Implied Bias, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Jury Persuasion For Mixed Gender Message Delivery.

Tags

, , , ,

Simple Jury Persuasion: Gender And Message Delivery And Framing, by Douglas Keene, The Jury Room Blog

http://tinyurl.com/osj9h23

Trial lawyers (and others who communicate to persuade) are always looking for a ‘silver bullet’ with which to gild their courtroom presentations. Today’s research offers a glimpse at this holy grail . . . as long as your listeners are either all male or all female. But fear not, there is also something very useful embedded in the results that allows you to improve the receptivity of a mixed gender audience to your message.

Researchers wanted to see if varying message delivery and message framing would make a difference in how the same message was perceived by male and female listeners. In other words, they wondered if you need to communicate differently to a male audience than to a female audience. They examined 2 kinds of message delivery and 2 kinds of message framing in a study focused on being physically fit.

To explore this, they created four (45 seconds long) videos about the importance of regular exercise (a male actor played the part of narrator ‘Dr. Linton,’ a health expert). The messages on the video were delivered in either an eager or a vigilant style and with either a gain or loss framing. (That means there were four versions of the video:  eager delivery style with either a gain message or a loss message or a vigilant style with either a gain message or a loss message.) . . .

Should Attorneys, Not Judges, Conduct Voir Dire At Trial?

14 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by in Implied Bias, Juror Impeachment, Jury Selection, Opening Argument, Peremptory Challenges, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Should Attorneys, Not Judges, Conduct Voir Dire At Trial?

Tags

, , , , ,

Let the Lawyers Ask: Five Reasons for Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator

http://tinyurl.com/new9t3c

You may think that trial attorneys are the only ones who conduct voir dire at trial. That is not necessarily the case. Not all judges agree, especially in federal court. Dr. Broda-Bahm argues here that the parties’ lawyers should have this role. -CCE

Ever had the experience of asking someone to ask someone else something on your behalf? It’s like a sixth-grader’s attempt to find out if someone likes you. Sometimes you need a little plausible deniability but, in most cases now, it’s easier and more direct to just ask on your own. And that is pretty much what attorneys want in voir dire. It is nice for the judge to explain the procedures and deal with some of the more obvious hardship and cause challenges, but I think it’s safe to say that every trial lawyer wants the chance to ask their own questions in voir dire. Unfortunately, in some states and in most federal courtrooms, attorney-conducted oral voir dire is either limited or nonexistent.

The judges in those courtrooms, however, have discretion, and can allow attorney-conducted oral voir dire if they think the case or the circumstances call for it. So, when attorneys do have an opening to argue for their own chance at the lectern during voir dire, how do they make the case? If the judge is firmly convinced that it’s wasted time or an unwelcome opportunity for lawyers to ask panelists to prejudge the case, then nothing is going to change that judge’s mind. But if judges are on the fence, then a joint request from the parties, along with a few good reasons, might be enough to sway them. This post offers five reasons, along with some supporting research, that could buttress a brief or an oral argument in favor of attorney-conducted oral voldir dire. . . .

Texas Prosecutor Fired for Using Racial Remarks In “Batson Challenge.”

12 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by in Batson Challenge, Implied Bias, Jury Selection, Trial Tips and Techniques, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas Prosecutor Fired for Using Racial Remarks In “Batson Challenge.”

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Travis County Prosecutor Fired Over Racial Remarks, by Tom Crane, San Antonio Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/o3m82b4

Poor choice of words, bad judgment, racially inappropriate or all three? -CCE

The ’Batson challenge’ allows a lawyer to challenge the strike of a potential jury member. The challenge is based on the decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 70 (1986), which found it unconstitutional to strike a potential jury member on the basis of race. The Batson challenge does not require much. So long as the lawyer can articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the peremptory strike, then the strike will likely stand.  A prosecutor, Steve Brand, in Travis County struck a potential jury member because she was a member of the NAACP, because she wanted to be a member of the jury, and because she had a link on her Facebook page to Negro Motorist Green Book, a book for safe travel during the Jim Crow era. Mr. Brand said he wanted to avoid an having an ’activist’ on the jury and would have done the same in regard to a perceived white activist. . . .

Inhibiting Jury Bias.

17 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Implied Bias, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Inhibiting Jury Bias.

Tags

, , , ,

Simple Jury Persuasion: “It Makes No Difference To Me But I’m Sure It Would To A Lot Of Other People,” posted by

http://keenetrial.com/blog/category/simple-jury-persuasion/

The study of bias fascinates us. We can easily spot prejudice in others but are oblivious to our own biases. We often ask a question at the end of a research project about community values and whether our (uniformly unbiased and considerate) mock jurors think others in the area would be biased against a party involved in the lawsuit about which they have just heard. Maybe the off-topic and irrelevant bias (perhaps religion, country of origin, ability to speak English, thick accent, appearing to be a gang member, sexual orientation, marital fidelity, obesity, etc.). Typically, the answer is, “Well, it doesn’t make a difference to me but it sure would to a lot of other people who live around here!” This response is shared in all sincerity and good faith by individuals who truly do not see themselves as biased.

The problem, as pointed out by today’s researchers, is that none of us see ourselves as having blind spots. We’re better than that–especially when forewarned that biased decision-making could lie ahead. As sensible and logical and rational as that perspective may seem, it simply doesn’t appear to be true. . . .

Jury Selection – How To Recognize A Bad Apple When You See One.

27 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Implied Bias, Indiana Supreme Court, Jury Selection, Peremptory Challenges, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Jury Selection – How To Recognize A Bad Apple When You See One.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

One Bad Apple Can Spoil the Whole Bunch. When Should a Juror, Not Be a Juror? by Richard A. Cook, The Barrister’s Toolbox – A Resource for Trial Advocacy

http://tinyurl.com/mv92klj

Jury selection is often where your case is won or lost. One bad juror can spoil your whole case. That one juror could lead the other jurors to render an adverse verdict, a compromise verdict or lead to gridlock and a hung jury. In civil cases, you often have limited peremptory challenges, where you can eliminate a juror without showing actual bias or other grounds for disqualification. So what exactly is the law? When is a judge obligated to grant your motion to strike a juror for cause? . . . .