Tag Archives: juries

Research Shows COVID-Related Opinion Shifts in Nationwide Jury Pools

By Jill D. Schmid

For the past couple of years, we’ve been conducting national surveys on a variety of subjects in order to find out what kinds of widely held beliefs jurors bring into the courtroom. This data has helped inform many litigation strategies, witness preparation efforts, and jury de-selection strategies. Recently, we put all the questions together, added COVID specific questions, and conducted our largest nationwide survey yet.  All of the data was collected in May 2020. The data not only tells us about how the jury pool will likely be different in the foreseeable future due to the fact that approximately 45% of the population responded that they would ignore a jury summons because of health/safety concerns, but it also shows us how attitudes have shifted as a result of the pandemic.  Here are just a few areas where we saw some swings. Continue reading

Above the Law Interview with Sound Jury Consulting

Juries Are About To Get A Lot More Corporate-Friendly Thanks To COVID

By Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D.

This week, I had the privilege of being interviewed by Above the Law about the research we have been conducting on how the pandemic impacts the jury pool and jury decision-making in general. Our findings have significant implications for trial scheduling and strategy development, making this episode well worth the listen. However, this only scratches the surface on the data that we have collected. We hope to publish more and more findings as we work through the data analysis in the coming weeks.

An Effective Strategy For Changing the Narrative in Difficult Cases

Finding the little fact that changes the case narrative can feel like finding a needle in a haystack at times, which is why it is always good to have a fresh pair of eyes.

By Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D.

Some of the best case strategies that we have developed with our clients over the years resulted in the other side having to defend something at trial that they never realized they would have to defend…something they took for granted. This is a strategy I learned during my college debate career (yes, I was a college debate nerd…but you would be surprised how many of your peers in your industry were as well). In my days of college debate, one of the most effective strategies was something called a plan-inclusive counterplan, or a “PIC” for short. The idea was that after the first (affirmative) team made their argument to start the round, the other team agreed with everything that side said except for one small, but incredibly important detail, something they never realized they might have to defend…something they took for granted. Continue reading

Does the Size of a Corporate Defendant Matter?


By Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D.

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

Dissecting the “Broken Rule” Strategy Used by Plaintiffs

By Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D.

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

Do You Know What Question Your Jurors are Really Answering in Deliberations?


By Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D.

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

The Sniper Defense Episode 12 – Crafting Effective Opening Statements

In this episode of The Sniper Defense, Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D. discusses practical tips for crafting effective opening statements.

The Sniper Defense Episode 10 – 10 Common Mistakes that Lead to Losses

In this episode of The Sniper Defense, Tom discusses the 10 common mistakes made by defense attorneys that cause them to lose at trial.

The Sniper Defense Episode 9 – Cross Examination Strategy

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.

The Sniper Defense Episode 8 – Reptile and Its Implications for Defense Strategy

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.