Tag Archives: Juries

What To Do When You Know the Jury Will Play With the Evidence.

21 Tuesday Nov 2017

Posted by in Evidence, Exhibits, Jury Persuasion, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on What To Do When You Know the Jury Will Play With the Evidence.

Tags

, , ,

Expect Jurors to Climb into the Cooler, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator™

http://bit.ly/2zXlFCX

Jurors, for the most part, take their job seriously. They want to do the right thing and do a good job. Regardless of whether you parade a cadre of expert witnesses in front of them, if your case hinges on how something works, the jury will want to try it out for themselves.

When you display a key piece of evidence in the courtroom throughout the trial, anticipate that the jurors will want to experiment with it when they adjourn to jury room. Dr. Broda-Bahm explains how to use the jurors’ natural curiosity to your advantage. -CCE

How To Research Opposing Counsel, Judges, and Juries.

21 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by in Internet, Law Journals, Legal Databases, Legal Directories, Legal Directory, LexisNexis, References, Research, TLO for Legal Professionals

≈ Comments Off on How To Research Opposing Counsel, Judges, and Juries.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Internet Tools for Researching Opposing Counsel, Judges, and Juries, by Anna Massoglia, Lawyerist Blog

https://lawyerist.com/92442/internet-tools-for-researching-opposing-counsel-judges-and-juries/

Knowing the ins and outs of how other courtroom players think is a key ingredient in successful litigation. Here’s how to do it. . . .

Continue reading →

How To Investigate Your Jurors’ Presence On Social Media And The Internet.

09 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Jury Selection, Research, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on How To Investigate Your Jurors’ Presence On Social Media And The Internet.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Social Media Searches: Go Beyond the Google, Guest post by Arianne Fuchsberger, M.A., Research Associate, Persuasion Strategies, Persuasion Litigator™

http://tinyurl.com/otdgloz

Almost a year ago, the ABA released Formal Opinion 466 clarifying that it is permissible for ‘a lawyer to [passively] review a juror’s or potential juror’s [public] Internet presence.’ Since then, researching seated or potential jurors online has not only become an option, but a necessity. Any additional information on your panel can aid in jury selection and during the actual trial, and lawyers should be doing everything they can to gather information about the individuals who may become the deciders in their case. With the accessibility and abundance of information on the Internet, it would be senseless not to use it.

67 percent of adults use at least one social media website, with 52 percent of adults using two or more. Ranging from blogs to the all-mighty Facebook, there are hundreds of social media websites where you can gain information about a potential juror. Facebook alone has 1.4 billion active users, 25 percent of whom do not use any privacy settings on their account. LinkedIn comes in at 7th with 347 million active users, and the 10th-ranked social network Twitter had over 288 million active monthly users as of March 2015 (statista.com). Beyond social networks, there are also public Internet articles, company websites, public documents, and many more sources of information that can inform you on a potential juror. But with all that information out there, it can be challenging to filter through it and find useful information. I will provide several tips on how to go about locating the full range of an individual’s online presence, and share some guidelines on identifying useful information once you do find the person. . . .

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. . . .

Include Juror Background Profiles For Strong Trial Strategy.

08 Thursday May 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Include Juror Background Profiles For Strong Trial Strategy.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Jury Research Education Series | Developing a Juror Profile: Having a Strong Foundation, by Merrie Jo Pitera, Ph.D-CEO, Litigation Insights

http://bit.ly/1ipKpno

Ultimately, a panel of jurors will decide your case. Knowing as much as possible about those jurors is therefore a critical element of trial strategy. Developing a juror profile you can requires gathering information about the characteristics of pro-plaintiff/pro-defense jurors in a scientifically valid manner. Just asking staff at your firm or a group of friends what they think doesn’t give you reliable information. The most reliable tool to develop your profile is based on the background questionnaire used in your jury research projects. In this blog post, we discuss how results from a questionnaire can serve as the foundation for your juror profile and how to design a well-constructed background questionnaire that gives you information you can trust. . . .

Why Isn’t The Judge Listening?

16 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Experts, Jury Persuasion, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Why Isn’t The Judge Listening?

Tags

, , , , , ,

Experts: Keep It Comparative, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://tinyurl.com/n3hovpy

The expert has prepared thoroughly for her testimony before the judge. She knows each opinion and every foundation. The outline that counsel developed is all but memorized. But then, as she is about an hour into describing the detailed methods and conclusions, the judge’s eyes are drifting down to the table and the nods of understanding have stopped: He isn’t getting it. In itself, there is nothing in the testimony that is impossible to understand – on the contrary, it is organized and clear. But the judge seems to have disengaged. Instead of tracking with the testimony at each step, he is just hearing detail after detail and letting it wash over him.  And if there were a jury in the room, the problem would be even worse.

What went wrong?  . . . .

Jury Nullification Secret Sneaking Out Of The Bag.

16 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Litigation, Trial Tips and Techniques

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

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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. . . .

Like Us, Judges and Juries Get the “Munchies.”

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Appellate Judges, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Direct Examination, Exhibits, Experts, Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Persuasion, Law Clerks, Litigation, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Like Us, Judges and Juries Get the “Munchies.”

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Time Your Arguments to the Judge’s Lunch Breaks (and Adapt to All Decision Makers’ “Cognitive Load”), by  Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator  Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lebleml

It comes as no surprise that a hungry person, be it the judge or members of a jury, find it difficult to concentrate and focus on your client’s case. Long stretches of testimony and argument are hard enough to follow, especially if the case is complex with numerous exhibits and witnesses. Regardless how comfortable the chair, sitting for long periods trying to listen carefully to a case is hard work.

There is more than one way to consider your audience at a trial or hearing. Persuasive argument is one. Excellent trial preparation using technology is another. Considerate and well-timed rest and meal breaks are another tool that can be used to your advantage.

The Rocket Science Blog mentioned in this post can be found at http://tinyurl.com/3dg5e8n. – CCE

Anyone who argues in front of judges knows that human factors can weigh as heavily as the law in determining your judge’s decisions.  But it is still possible at times to be surprised at the degree of influence, as well as the banality of those human factors.  Case in point: lunch and snack breaks.  Recent research discussed in the excellent Not Exactly Rocket Science blog appears to show that judges’ decisions vary as a direct effect of the proximity of their morning snack or lunch break.  In case you are using your morning break or lunch hour to read this post, I’d like to make it worth your while by applying the study findings to the more general issue of your decision-makers’ mental work load and offering some recommendations for anyone who needs to make arguments to a potentially fatigued audience. . . .

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

17 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by 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

, , , , , , ,

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. . . .

The “Litigation Explosion” is a Myth

23 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Personal Injury, Settlement

≈ Comments Off on The “Litigation Explosion” is a Myth

Tags

, , , , ,

Greg H. Haubrich, Senior Trial Lawyer at Foshee & Yafee, explains why he recommended — and his client accepted — a settlement agreement that will barely pay her medical bills.

The Haubrich Law Firm, P.C.

The Myth of the “Litigation Explosion”   

A lawyer wears two hats:  Advocate, and counselor.  As advocate, my duty is to fight for you hard as hell, tooth and nails; to be the knight in shining armor charging into the Valley of Death.  As counselor, I must give you the news and help you realistically evaluate your odds so that you can make well-informed decisions regarding basic questions in your case: especially, whether to accept a settlement offer.

Today I recommended — and my client accepted — a settlement agreement that will barely pay her medical bills.   Why?

The first reason is that it is hard to understand how a person can be seriously injured in a collision when there is not a lot of visible crash damage to their vehicle.  Science does not support the idea that crash damage correlates to injury.  In fact, it is established that deaths sometimes…

View original post 968 more words