Why do jurors talk about some testimony in deliberations, but not other testimony? Why do jurors start deliberations by talking about an issue that is not related to the first verdict form question? Why do they seem to want to talk about the one thing you repeatedly told them was irrelevant? These are important questions, and the answers may help attorneys exert greater control over what jurors spend their time talking about in deliberations. The strategic advantage that would come from this is difficult to overstate. After all, the cliché in our field is that a verdict is a product of what jurors choose to talk about most in deliberations. What they choose to talk about creates momentum for and against the parties in the case, which can often drive the final verdict.
The fundamental idea here is that, when jurors go back into deliberations, they have dozens and dozens of things related to the case that they could potentially talk about. Regardless of what they choose, they are not going to talk about everything. It reminds me of a case not too long ago where I had the opportunity to interview the jurors after the verdict came in. It was a four-week trial and over 1,000 exhibits went into evidence. The jury deliberated for almost three days. After all that deliberation, I asked them how many exhibits they looked at. Eight! Out of the thousand exhibits that were entered, they looked at eight before arriving at their verdict. The discussion in deliberations is similar. When all is said and done, the jury will have only discussed a fraction of the issues they could or should have discussed during their deliberations. Continue reading →
Over the past few months, I’ve celebrated my 40thbirthday, my 15thyear in the jury consulting industry, and the 5-year anniversary of Sound Jury Consulting. In short, I’m getting older, and as we grow older, the world around us changes. One of the more interesting changes in the world of juries is the increasing number of millennials serving as jurors. Recently, I looked at the venire information from 18 trials in which I picked a jury in King County, Washington (Seattle) over the past 3 years. The sample size was large — over a 1,000 potential jurors. Nearly all of these cases were set to last two or more weeks. Of the 1,000+ individuals who showed up for jury duty, 31% were millennials (i.e. 1 in every 3 people showing up for jury duty in King County is a millennial). Continue reading →
One of the studies that I like to cite more than just about any is the old 3M study that showed that people remember only about 10% of what they are told three days after it is told to them. Apply this to a trial setting and the implication is that jurors will forget up to 90% of what they heard over the course of a trial by the time they reach the deliberation room. To put it a different way, by the time jurors reach the deliberation room, they are overwhelmed, do not remember the majority of what they just heard, and face the difficult task of having to sort through hundreds to thousands of exhibits, their largely disorganized notes, and a stack of jury instructions that can be difficult to decipher. Continue reading →
In his 2011 book Thinking Fast and Slow, famed psychologist and Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman wrote this in his effort to explain the essence of intuitive heuristics: “When faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”
While the fundamental concept in this quote is not particularly ground-breaking (at least in today’s world of psychological research), Kahneman’s phrasing eloquently hammers home a critical point for attorneys and how they think about their cases. Continue reading →
I had a very interesting experience recently on a case in New York. While we had worked with the client before, we had never worked with this particular group of attorneys. The stakes were significant and there were ongoing discussions about a potential mock trial. These discussions created an interesting dynamic where the client wanted to do a mock trial, but the client’s attorneys did not support the idea and questioned the value of such a project. Notably, the client, who we had worked with several times in the past, had never conducted a mock trial before, so while he was convinced that there was value to a mock trial, he could not necessarily articulate what the specific benefits of conducting one would be.
The end result was that the client made the decision to move forward despite his attorneys’ lack of interest. Afterwards, he was so impressed with the critical insights that we learned that the decision was made to conduct a second mock trial a month later in order to maximize the trial team’s intel for its strategy development and trial presentation decisions. 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, 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 →
It is a scary proposition to hand a case that you have worked on for months or years over to a jury for final adjudication. With all that’s on the line, it’s actually quite preposterous when you think about it. It took you months or years to learn enough about the case to bring it to trial and present it. Now you’ll hand the fate of all that work over to a small group of random people, who probably knew nothing about the issues in the case before they showed up for jury duty. You have no clue what they will do. All you can do is wait and hope.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. As I’ve discussed in previous blog posts, attorneys focus too much on strategies for persuasion at the expense of strategies for controlling deliberations. A persuaded juror is not necessarily an influential juror and this is important because the safest bet for any attorney is to assume there will be some division amongst the jurors when they enter that deliberation room. Strategies for persuasion do very little for the attorney in this scenario. Either they were persuaded or they were not. Now, the jurors need to figure out how to resolve the division and render a verdict. Continue reading →
I’m a relatively new user of Facebook – turns out my protest against it wasn’t working as there are now over 1.25 billion users. I finally gave in and joined as I was told that people use it to share pictures of their kids, dogs, and vacations. While that is somewhat true, I’ve also found that people use it to “share” and “like” their political, religious, and moral views about every subject under the sun. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem sharing my opinion, but typically I like to do it in a face-to-face setting where we can engage in a discussion of the issue and where people can tell me I’m full of “it” right to my face – no hiding behind a computer screen.
My dislike for Facebook has become more intense recently. I’ve learned in the past couple of months that I’m going to have to take a hiatus from it until the political season is over. I was thinking about the posts and the feedback to those posts when an attorney friend posted the picture above.
This got me thinking about what I do – and how social media and the “sharing” of opinion as if it’s fact influences how people pay attention to, process, and remember information presented to them during trial. Continue reading →