It has been a busy few months of picking juries for our consultants at Sound Jury Consulting. I have picked three juries in the past three weeks alone and we seem to have had a record number of cases lately that have made it all the way to trial. This has led to a lot of opportunities to see how different attorneys approach voir dire. The different approaches fall generally into three categories: 1) Well-planned and thought-out; 2) Those with questionable goals; and 3) Those with no apparent purpose.
It is difficult to understate the importance of jury selection, regardless of which philosophy you embrace. These are the people who are going to ultimately decide your client’s fate. The problem is that voir dire time is limited, even under liberal conditions. Due to these time constraints, attorneys are often forced to make difficult choices about how to spend their limited opportunity to speak with potential jurors. So let’s look at these three categories in more detail. Continue reading →
The other day I was watching FBI Director Comey’s testimony to Congress regarding the FBI’s Clinton email investigation and findings. It began as a test of my mental fortitude, but I found that I enjoyed watching how Comey handled the questions and delivered his responses. In particular, I admired the way he kept his composure while still being strong and, when necessary, a bit indignant.
Comey wasn’t angry or rude. Instead, when needed, he used righteous indignation. A good example of this came when Comey was being “asked questions” by Florida Representative John Mica. Towards the end of the allotted five minutes, Comey had had enough of the insinuations and thinly veiled attacks on his investigation and conclusions. He sat up a bit straighter, talked a bit louder and clearer, and he stated, “I hope what you’ll tell the folks in the café is ‘look me in the eye and listen to what I’m about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House. The Department of Justice. Nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath. I stand by that….’” He ends by saying, “I want to make sure I was definitive about that.” You can watch his testimony here. Continue reading →
In this episode of The Sniper Defense, Podcast Playbook for Defense Attorneys, Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D. discusses strategies for defense attorneys to exert greater influence over the content and structure of jurors’ notes.
In this episode of The Sniper Defense, Tom discusses practical strategies for defense attorneys to consider as they try to make the most of their cross examination opportunities during the plaintiff’s case-in-chief.
In episode 8 of The Sniper Defense, podcast playbook for defense attorney, jury expert Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D. discusses the popular plaintiff strategy Reptile and its implications for defense strategy throughout discovery and trial.
Defense witnesses such as 30(b)(6) witnesses and key employees make or break the case. These witnesses serve a symbolic role that goes above and beyond the implications of the actual words that they say. Instead, they tell the jurors what kind of organization the defendant is. They serve as ambassadors for the defendant. If they are sloppy, disorganized, or come across as uncaring, the defendant will be perceived by the jury as sloppy, disorganized, or uncaring. In fact, the two most commonly discussed plaintiff strategies (Reptile and the referendum strategy) thrive on poor performances by key defense witnesses. The result is a frustrated jury that feels the need to “send a message” to the defendant that it needs to change the way it does business.
Fortunately, the solution is pretty simple: a witness prep session. Defense attorneys often have what they call “prep meetings” with their witnesses, but there are five common shortcomings of these sessions that undermine their effectiveness. Continue reading →
In this episode of The Sniper Defense, Podcast Playbook for the Defense, jury expert Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D. discusses the ten key turning points in jury deliberations that influence the momentum for one party or another.
“Voter turnout was not as high as I had wanted” – Sanders
“Trump takes Upstate as voter turnout exceeds expectations.”
“Cruz has a real shot of winning…but only if turnout doesn’t exceed the record in 2012…”
You can’t turn on the TV without hearing some kind of statement about voter turnout – some candidates want it, while others hope it stays low. You’re either a candidate who is hoping you can motivate those who are not regular participants in the political process to come out and vote or you are hoping that apathy reigns and only the established base shows up. While it might be politically advantageous for a few candidates to try to suppress the vote, generally, the best strategy is to not only engage your base, but to also do everything possible to motivate the wider voting public to get out and act.
The same is true of your jury. While you can hope that there might be a few on the panel you consider your “base” (i.e. those who have experiences and attitudes that favor your view of the case), more likely you have a group of “undecideds” and you are going to have to do whatever you can to engage and motivate them to not only support your position, but to actively and persuasively participate in deliberations. Think of it this way: there might be people who believe, “Hmmm, that Bernie Sanders seems like he’d be a great president.” Or “Never thought Trump could be President, but that makes sense!” However, if they sit at home and do not act on their belief, then these candidates cannot win. If you have a juror who was swayed to your point of view during the trial, but during deliberations sits back and lets opposing jurors who are more passionate lead the charge, then your efforts are all for naught. Continue reading →