For years, I’ve successfully avoided Facetime calls and most video conferences. However, around 9 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, and 42 minutes ago, that all changed. Not only did all of my work transition to video conferences, but so did my communication with my family and friends. Houseparty and Zoom are my new normal and I have to say, it’s not all bad! Yes, there are all the headaches we’ve known about for years: everyone talking over each other, followed by silence as everyone stops to let others continue; the frozen feed followed by everyone having to repeat what was just said; surprise video “guests”; etc. Through it all, though, people have adapted, and their video “skills” have improved. We’ve also learned that there are some things that do not necessarily need to be conducted “in person.” Just like all of the attorneys out there, our firm is also figuring out what can and cannot be done via videoconference. My colleague Tom wrote about one aspect of this in his blog, “How Does the COVID Pandemic Impact Mock Trials and Focus Groups?”
This past Friday, I conducted our first ever all-day mock jury selection workshop in Seattle. Ten attorneys spent the day conducting voir dire and picking a jury to deliberate on the product liability fact pattern we put together ahead of time. Then the mock jurors actually deliberated so we could see how well the attorneys did in voir dire and their use of peremptory strikes. We tried to match everything we could to the actual jury selection process used by our local court. The attorneys had to come up with the right questions to ask, get up and ask them effectively to the large group of mock jurors, and then track that information, along with all of the answers provided during the other attorneys’ voir dire. The mock jurors filled out individual feedback forms and also participated in a group interview where they provided their thoughts about the mock voir dire that had occurred.
It made for a fun, interesting, and insightful day. While the mock jurors had a lot to say, there were some common threads throughout their feedback that attorneys should carefully consider when drafting their own voir dire. Here are three key observations from the day: 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 →
It has been a busy few months of picking juries for our consultants at Sound Jury Consulting. I have picked three juries in the past three weeks alone and we seem to have had a record number of cases lately that have made it all the way to trial. This has led to a lot of opportunities to see how different attorneys approach voir dire. The different approaches fall generally into three categories: 1) Well-planned and thought-out; 2) Those with questionable goals; and 3) Those with no apparent purpose.
It is difficult to understate the importance of jury selection, regardless of which philosophy you embrace. These are the people who are going to ultimately decide your client’s fate. The problem is that voir dire time is limited, even under liberal conditions. Due to these time constraints, attorneys are often forced to make difficult choices about how to spend their limited opportunity to speak with potential jurors. So let’s look at these three categories in more detail. Continue reading →
The other day I was watching FBI Director Comey’s testimony to Congress regarding the FBI’s Clinton email investigation and findings. It began as a test of my mental fortitude, but I found that I enjoyed watching how Comey handled the questions and delivered his responses. In particular, I admired the way he kept his composure while still being strong and, when necessary, a bit indignant.
Comey wasn’t angry or rude. Instead, when needed, he used righteous indignation. A good example of this came when Comey was being “asked questions” by Florida Representative John Mica. Towards the end of the allotted five minutes, Comey had had enough of the insinuations and thinly veiled attacks on his investigation and conclusions. He sat up a bit straighter, talked a bit louder and clearer, and he stated, “I hope what you’ll tell the folks in the café is ‘look me in the eye and listen to what I’m about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House. The Department of Justice. Nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath. I stand by that….’” He ends by saying, “I want to make sure I was definitive about that.” You can watch his testimony here. 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.
Well, I’m entering my 13th year of providing jury consulting services to attorneys across the country. It’s inevitable that you see some funny stuff in the courtroom with as much time as I spend there. The Legal Pad is my attempt to share some of those funny, but somewhat educational moments. Enjoy!