It finally happened this past week. I was called for jury duty. I have spent my entire adult life studying jury behavior and decision-making. I spent years in graduate school and wrote a dissertation on juror sense-making to receive my Ph.D. in legal communication and psychology. I’ve read thousands of studies on juries. I’ve worked in the field for over a decade. I’ve watched hundreds of mock juries deliberate. Yet, I had never been called for jury duty.
There were many surprising things about the experience, but most surprising were the distractions and the boredom. I know jury duty can make life difficult for jurors. I know jurors sit around and wait a lot. I know the process can be quite boring. Yet, before this experience, I had not appreciated the reality of it. Continue reading →
In 2007, the American Bar Association (ABA) released its updated Civil Trial Practice Standards. The ABA described the standards as an attempt to “to standardize and promote the use of these innovative trial techniques.” These standards contain recommendations for what many attorneys might describe as “cutting edge” trial procedures. Most important, these recommended trial procedures potentially provide attorneys with critical presentation opportunities to exert control over the trier-of-fact’s perception of the case and the key issues in dispute.
Yet, few attorneys are aware of the standards and express surprise at the suggestion that judges might allow any of the recommended trial procedures. I am not sure whether it is a product of the ABA’s failure to bring sufficient attention to them, attorneys’ general inattentiveness to trial issues not born out of case law, or a face-value rejection of anything that seems “outlandish.” Regardless of the reason, it is time for attorneys to start paying closer attention since the use of the recommended procedures may provide their clients a strategic advantage at trial. Continue reading →