When Colin Kaepernick first took a knee in 2016 during the National Anthem to protest police brutality against African-Americans, the controversy was almost immediate. The why he was doing it didn’t matter much then, and it doesn’t seem to matter much now. Instead, the protest became about the flag, the military, or even Donald Trump. One survey in October of 2017 showed that while 57% of the respondents checked that “protesting against police violence” was “one” reason for the protests, respondents also checked other reasons: Donald Trump (26%), not sure (18%), something else (20%) and the flag (14%).
This morning, as I was watching yet another story about the “Flag protest,” I wondered if support and/or understanding of the protest would be different if the label was different. While changing the label might help (labeling it what the protest is really about, e.g., “Police Brutality Protest”), what seems to have happened with this protest is that the focus became the flag and anthem as opposed to police brutality and other injustices and inequalities in the African-American community. In other words, the manner over-shadowed the message – the focus was on the protest itself and not the reason for the protest. 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 →
Mock trials are a popular tool for attorneys who want to learn how jurors will react to their cases. Mock trials have become so commonplace that some argue it is malpractice not to conduct one in a high-exposure matter. With the increased use of mock trials, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of misconceptions about the design and value of this type of jury research. Let’s take a look at four common misconceptions about mock trials. Continue reading →
“Themes” and “story” have been the buzzwords of the jury consulting industry for nearly forty years. Judging from the vast majority of calls that I receive, these two items are what most defense attorneys believe are the missing pieces in their efforts to convince the jury to find for the defense. It can be challenging to develop a theme or a story. It sounds so simple, yet it can be unclear about how you go about developing them. Fortunately, there are experts like me who can assist defense attorneys with this process. However, for a variety of reasons, defense attorneys do not always have the ability to retain a jury consultant. With that in mind, this blog identifies five simple, but essential exercises for defense attorneys who are trying to develop powerful themes and stories for their case.
Seem a little silly? While no attorney has ever said something like this to me, from time to time, I have sensed that a client initially thought such exercises might be silly. Any hint of this quickly fades as we get into the exercise in our strategy sessions. Defense attorneys are often surprised by how helpful these simple and “silly” exercises help them in the strategy development process. Continue reading →
With that headline, there are quite a few things I could write about. This blog, however, is about the Trump problem for the other seventeen GOP candidates. Watch any interview with a Republican candidate and what do the interviewers spend most of their time asking the candidate about? Trump. A few candidates are fairly good at deflecting and putting the focus back on their candidacy, but others buy in and spend their valuable network time talking about Trump.
Now, I’m not saying that Trump is going to win the nomination since Trump’s biggest problem is also Trump. But, when the other candidates only talk about Trump (whether “forced” by the media or by choice), they become another mouthpiece for him and his story, not their own. Even if they spend that time attacking him, they are still making it about him and, consequently, letting him control the dialogue and debate. Continue reading →
Plaintiffs’ attorneys approach case development and presentation in a multitude of both predictable and unpredictable ways, but none is more dangerous to defendants than what I call the “referendum” strategy. In short, the “referendum” strategy is a clever strategy that, when successful, allows plaintiffs to sidestep their burden of proof under the law and instead, create what is essentially a reverse burden of proof for the defense. It shifts the focus of the case to the defense and forces defendants to cope with a barrage of seemingly-disorganized attacks. In reality, what can sometimes seem like disorganization and foolish decision-making by a plaintiff’s attorney is often a very calculated attack. The results can be devastating. The “referendum” strategy is often the source of headline-grabbing or record-breaking damage awards. Continue reading →
“A verdict is a product of what jurors choose to focus on.” This mantra has been drilled into my head since my early days of working on my doctorate in Legal Communication and Psychology. The extraordinary simplicity of the statement causes it to teeter on the brink of cliché, but as my favorite author David Foster Wallace once said, “the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.” Clichés are clichés for a reason: they speak to simple truths. Sometimes, however, these simple truths are so simple that they are easy to ignore, but to steal another line from Wallace, I’d ask you to “bracket for just a few minutes your skepticism about the value of the totally obvious.”
Jurors’ focus is zero-sum. If jurors are focused on one thing, they are not focused on something else. This is critical once you consider the research that suggest jurors remember as little as 10% of what they heard over the course of trial by the time they reach deliberations. Any given case has hundreds or thousands of pieces of information associated with it. This is true of even the simplest cases. It may not feel that way to the attorneys, but that is because the attorneys have already determined what he or she believes is important about the case (i.e. he or she has already established a focus). Consequently, many facts and a lot of testimony will be forgotten or ultimately have no impact on deliberations. Focus serves as the gatekeeper for what is considered important and unimportant, which plays a critical role in what is remembered and discussed during deliberations. Continue reading →