It probably comes as no surprise that corporate defendants face a disadvantage at trial compared to individual defendants. A long line of research has established this general corporate bias; however, there has been little attention given to how jurors view large versus small corporations, so we collected data on the subject in a 2017 nationwide survey of jury-eligible respondents.
The data generally revealed that larger corporations face greater bias than smaller corporations on both liability and damages. As support, let’s look at some interesting data points from our survey on how respondents’ beliefs might impact their views of liability in cases involving large corporations: Continue reading →
One of the most popular strategies used and advocated by many plaintiff’s attorneys across the country is the “broken rule” strategy. The theory is that the most important strategy for any plaintiff is to establish a clear rule up front, and then prove that the defendant broke that rule. Some of the popularity of this theory comes from Reptile, written by David Ball and Don Keenan.
As I’ve written before, there are a variety of significant problems and shortcomings associated with the Reptile strategy, one of which is that the “science” that serves as the foundation for the theory has largely been disproven. However, just like some people still believe vaccinations lead to autism, many attorneys have brushed aside the problems with the science behind the Reptile strategy. So let’s set the science discussion to the side and take a closer look at the “broken rule” strategy. 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 →
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.
“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 →
In this episode of The Sniper Defense, Podcast Playbook for Defense Attorneys, Thomas O’Toole, Ph.D. discusses a process that defense attorneys can use to develop effective defense strategies and themes.
Reptile has become a popular topic of discussion for attorneys across the country, perhaps because folks like myself continue to write about it. Most of us have witnessed the fall-out, whether it be panicked pleas for feedback on defense forums or pre-trial motions to preclude “Reptilian” tactics. I’ve written extensively on defense strategies to counteract Reptile, but the more important question is whether or not defense attorneys should even worry about it in the first place.
If we focus on the science alone, this discussion quickly ends. Keenan and Ball claim to have derived their theory from the work of Paul MacLean, a neuroscientist who did most of his work in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. MacLean proposed the triune theory of the brain, a three-component theory of the brain. One of those components, under MacLean’s theory, is the reptilian complex, which houses our survival instincts. Unfortunately for MacLean, contemporary research has shown that many of his assumptions and conclusions associated with the triune brain theory are wrong. Continue reading →