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 →
Despite what Allen Iverson might say (search “Allen Iverson” and “practice” on YouTube if you do not get this reference), practice is essential to the successful development of any skillset. In competition, competitors get better by practicing. This is why it is surprising to me that most attorneys do not practice their voir dire before the day of jury selection, particularly when so many also preach about primacy theory and the need to make a good impression right off the bat.
Statistics indicate that fewer and fewer cases make it to trial, which means most attorneys have had few opportunities to conduct voir dire. Even for experienced attorneys, it may have been years since the last time they picked a jury. Additionally, jury selection is not something that comes natural to most attorneys as it is the opposite of what most attorneys are used to doing – arguing as opposed to listening. Many attorneys admit that they do not like voir dire and that it is the one thing about trial that makes them nervous. The anecdote to all of this is PRACTICE. Practice will make you better. Continue reading →
By Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D. and Scott Herndon, M.A.
In 2016, Oxford Dictionaries chose “post-truth” as its word of the year. It defined it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” This concept has long been recognized in the fields of psychology and persuasion. Research has consistently shown that people tend to put beliefs before facts. In other words, decision-making often starts with what we want to believe, followed by efforts to seek out evidence that confirms what we want to believe, while downplaying, ignoring, or rejecting evidence that goes against those beliefs.
For this reason, misinformation is surprisingly resilient to correction and retraction. In fact, some studies show that efforts to correct misinformation actually reinforce the misinformation itself. This creates an interesting problem for litigants at trial. While it is primarily a problem for defendants, many litigants find themselves struggling to undue undesirable first impressions (or misinformation) that were created in opening or early in the trial. We do not intend to suggest that misinformation is synonymous with undesirable first impressions, but the resulting problem remains the same. Here are ten strategies for undoing undesirable first impressions or misinformation that we have identified from the research and our own experience working with hundreds of juries and mock juries across the country. Continue reading →
We quickly learned that Richard was a horrible juror for us in the trucking accident case we were working on. We had decent evidence that the plaintiff had fallen asleep behind the wheel and veered into our truck, but Richard wasn’t having it. As soon as this issue came up in deliberations, he jumped in, stating, “I don’t care what he says. We have all been on the road with truck drivers and they routinely fly over into the other lane without any notice at all.” This quote was so powerful because what Richard was really saying was, I don’t care what the evidence in this case is because I’m going to go with my own personal experiences instead. Fortunately, this was only a mock trial, but it highlights an important reality about jury decision-making: it is an ego-centric process, and the research shows it is only getting worse with the emergence of the millennial juror. Continue reading →
One of the often-overlooked features of the social media revolution is how it has changed the consumer/product dynamic. In this era of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the long list of other social media sites, we are no longer the consumers; we are the product. It is our information and attention that drives profit in these industries. Companies like Facebook observe our online conduct and sell that data to other companies. Consequently, incredible attention in recent years has focused on how to keep users engaged in information consumption, which is what we do when we visit these technology platforms. Continue reading →
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 →
Last year, famed actor Johnny Depp filed a lawsuit against his management company for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment among other things, essentially claiming that his management company, TMG, stole a significant amount of money from him. According to news reports, the case is expected to go to trial this coming August.
Sadly, the story of a management team ripping off its successful celebrity client has become all too common. We have consulted on a variety of these cases throughout the years, involving television and movie actors, famous musicians, and celebrity athletes. Our research has shown that these cases can be difficult for the celebrity victims, but there are significant opportunities to overcome many of the common hurdles. Continue reading →
The “me too” movement has become one of the most defining issues in American culture over the last year. We have seen a variety of celebrities and public figures lose their jobs, and the media coverage has been extensive. The movement itself seeks to raise awareness, increase dialogue, and change the way many people think about issues related to sexual harassment and abuse.
In the world of litigation, a common area where sexual harassment claims arise is in employment litigation, but I have seen little to no research into how the “me too” movement has influenced the way jurors think about and react to sexual harassment claims in employment lawsuits. Consequently, we decided to conduct a national survey to examine this issue. Some of the data came as no surprise, while other data points highlighted some concerns about the movement’s implications for the workplace. Respondents were evenly balanced along political lines, almost evenly divided between “conservatives” and “liberals,” with a large number of “moderates” as well. Continue reading →
Confirmation bias refers to when people accept or reject evidence based upon what they want to believe as opposed to basing it on the actual merits of the evidence. In some ways, it is a psychological survival mechanism tied to our beliefs about how the world works. Challenges to these beliefs can cause a great deal of chaos and stress, so our brains are, essentially, pre-programmed to seek out evidence that reinforces those beliefs, while minimizing, explaining away, or outright rejecting evidence that challenges them. In fact, this explains the siloed media we have today where people tend to pick which news channels to watch based upon their political affiliation.
For lawyers, confirmation bias can be a significant problem at trial, especially when the first impressions favor the other party. As Nobel prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman notes, “The sequence in which we observe characteristics of a person is often determined by chance. Sequence matters, however, because the halo effect increases the weight of first impressions, sometimes to the point that subsequent information is mostly wasted.” In other words, first impressions at trial often shape how jurors perceive the subsequent evidence and testimony at trial. A poor first impression of the defendant will likely lead jurors to place greater focus and emphasis on evidence and testimony that reinforces the negative view of the defendant and vice versa. Continue reading →
Sound Jury Consulting recently conducted a nationwide online survey in which we asked the following: If you were sitting as juror in a trial where your personal beliefs about the case were in conflict with the laws the judge told you to follow, how difficult do you believe it would be to set your personal beliefs aside and not let them influence your decision? 62% said it would be very or somewhat difficult. While the results highlight the importance of a sound jury de-selection strategy, they also speak to what many might call jury nullification. Continue reading →