Arrogance 101: Dump It!

Recently,  R. Allen Stanford, the onetime Caribbean banking tycoon, was found guilty of investment fraud by a jury on 13 of 14 criminal counts, and required to forfeit $330 million in assets.

What brought him down? Stanford’s fraud and greed, of course, but according to the jurors, more than anything, it was Stanford’s demeanor that convicted him, his arrogant attitude in the courtroom day after day.

Many of you are saddled with arrogant clients or witnesses, and many a time I’ve been called in to help prepare the witness for trial, because this type of witness always rubs jurors the wrong way. Yet the “fix” is remarkably simple.

Arrogance is expressed through body language, vocal tone, and patterns of response. An arrogant person’s body is often canted back, their chin tilted slightly up as if looking down their nose at others. Their tone is condescending, full of dismissive utterances and/or sarcasm. Their responses fail to take into account jurors’ different levels of education or sophistication.

All of these are easily corrected by an appeal to the arrogant individual’s desire to do well, even brilliantly (a consequence of their narcissism), along with a hefty dose of video-taped role play, none of which alter the truth or substance of their testimony one iota. It does, however, alter your witness’s presentation of said truth on the stand, such that jurors can perceive beyond your witness’s arrogance to what’s important: the substance of their testimony. 

Overreach and Risk Losing the Case

Former Boston firefighter Albert Arroyo, called “the poster child for disability pension abuse” by some, was acquitted recently, much to the consternation of many, for the firefighter, while claiming work-related disability, appeared in various bodybuilding competitions. Jurors when interviewed stated that although most of them believed that Mr. Arroyo was guilty of fraud, they did not believe he was guilty of mail fraud, which was the charge put before them. The jurors concluded that since Mr. Arroyo did not mail his disability forms, but handed them in, he had no way of knowing his forms would in turn be mailed out. The jurors believed they thus had no choice, but to acquit him. They weren’t happy about it, but “we had to stick with mail fraud or nothing.”

There is a potent lesson in here for litigators: don’t over-reach! Proving mail fraud may have, if successful, gained more for prosecutors, but proving mail fraud defied common sense. And common sense is what jurors rely on.

You can’t buck common sense. The easiest, quickest way to find out if the charges or representations of negligence and causation you want to put before a jury will hold up, is to conduct a focus group. As long as your focus group is made up of a sufficient number of persons demographically representative of your jury pool, its members will tell you, in no uncertain terms, what they will “buy” and what they won’t. I guarantee, common sense will win out every time. Go look for it among your potential decision-makers. Do not assume that your version of what will fly, is the common one.

Stop Whining! Win Juror Votes with Witness “Can Do” Attitude (Part I, Plaintiff)

Your key witness is usually your client, or your client’s representative. If plaintiff, the witness is likely to complain, a litany of “He/she/they done me wrong.” Perfectly understandable, why else would your client be there in the first place! However, to juror ears, an unending stream of complaints sounds like whining, and jurors don’t like whiners.

What they like are people who, despite their misfortunes, are valiant, are giving it the best shot they can. This doesn’t mean your plaintiff client stiff-upper-lips it to where through gritted teeth/wired jaw they maintain “All is well,” but rather that you make sure, during direct, that you expose the ways in which your client is doing the very best that they can to survive/heal/improve things despite horrendous odds.

Now you have a potential winner in juror eyes, not a loser-whiner.

Not “The Other Side Of The Story,” The Other Story

It doesn’t matter which side you represent, you must tell a story. For the plaintiff side, this is obvious: there’s a wrong to be righted, and it always has a story. For the defense side, this is equally true, though not always acknowledged.

You see, it’s not about “the other side of the story,” for that places the control back in the plaintiff’s hands. The plaintiff still defines the terms of the game, the boundaries of play. It’s about “the other story” where the defense presents an entirely different scenario for jurors to experience. Now the playing field is level. Jurors can choose to be convinced by one story or the other.

The truism “the best defense is a good offense” holds. Instead of defending, defense now speaks to the plaintiff’s claims by showing how they fit as legitimate, “good” pieces within the defense’s “story.” For example, with a med mal case, the defense could include as part of its story how the doctor's procedure/process is highly regarded - the best possible and safest course given the patient’s condition. Or how that doctor trusts, relies on, and has seen excellent results from the procedure/process, what diagnostics were used to validate the doctor's choice, the doctor's well-thought out decision-making process (“decision tree”), as well as how the plaintiff neglected the doctor's instructions. And of course, the alternate causes for the plaintiff’s current condition.

As laborious as the above may seem, giving the jurors a rich and many-pronged defense story, as opposed to simply defending against specific claims, will greatly increase your chances of a winning case.

How to Help Jurors Discredit the Lay Witness in Cross

We all cooperate more willingly with decisions we’ve had a hand in making. Jurors in trial are no different. Ask your questions in cross-examination in a way that allows the jurors to arrive at the unmistakable, inescapable, conclusion you want them to, rather than force the conclusion down their throats or risking a sympathetic answer from defense’s witness.

For example: The lawyer is cross-examining a lay witness at the scene of a bus-pedestrian accident. The lawyer represents the pedestrian.

Question: Ms. Smith, did you see the bus as it came towards the intersection of First and Main shortly before the accident?
Answer: Yes, I did.
Question: Could you tell us what the color of the light was for the bus as it came down First?
Answer: It was green, a green light.
Question: Really? Isn’t it true that when you spoke to the police officer shortly after the accident you said the light was red?
Answer: Oh, well, I’m sorry, I’m a little nervous. I’m sure the police officer report is right.

Well, at this point, the jurors may very well believe the witness, since she’s being humble and apologetic and who isn’t nervous in court? The lawyer meanwhile has lost the opportunity to show the jurors that the case isn’t as cut and dried as defense would have them believe.

A more effective way to approach this might be:
Question: Could you tell us what the color the light was for the bus as it came down First?
Answer: It was green, a green light.
Question: Ms. Smith, did you talk with a police officer right there at the scene, just after the accident?
Answer: Yes, I did.
Question: And did that police officer ask you what color the light was for the bus as it came down First?
Answer: Yes, I think he did.

Rather than pounce on the witness at this point and give her the opportunity to sympathetically correct herself, the lawyer could produce the police report and show (visuals work!) the portion where Ms. Smith unequivocally said “The light was red,” and simply end his cross on that note.

The jurors can now come to their own conclusion that Ms. Smith is, for whatever reason, being less than truthful, and are now much more likely to accept the police report as stated, which was exactly what the lawyer wanted them to do.

How to Persuade With Jury Instructions

Jurors polled in focus groups and jury debriefings point out again and again that one of their greatest stumbling blocks at arriving to fair and just decisions is jurors' lack of understanding of the jury instructions and how those instructions should apply to the case. No matter how many times jurists attempt to make jury instructions more accessible to the ordinary person, the language remains obscure and convoluted. Lawyers must help jurors make sense of the language - and most importantly - help the jurors understand how these instructions fit with your case.

For example, take the common instruction regarding "negligence." Jurors often interpret the term as meaning deliberately, intentionally failing to do something one should have done. This is, after all, the most common use of the term in our everyday parlance. Unless clearly instructed that the intent to inflict harm is not a prerequisite of a finding for the plaintiff, the jurors, for example, might absolve a physician's incompetence because "the doctor didn't mean to hurt the patient."

In addition, even when jurors understand the words themselves, they can fail to see how the instruction applies to your case. What is obvious to you is often cryptic to jurors. Throughout the trial, relate testimony and evidence to the key terms of your jury instructions, and remind jurors at closing of how you accomplished this. A "bottom-line"-type chart will easily reinforce the connection.

It is a truism that the lawyer who provides the most clarity and logical explanation of a situation is the lawyer who will prevail. Although this is important throughout the trial, it is critical at during closing arguments. Improper handling of jury instructions can damage an otherwise wonderfully prepared and presented case.

Keep Experts Cool for a Credible Response

Experts can shine or be demolished during cross. An easy way for opposing counsel to destroy otherwise sterling expert testimony is to goad the expert into responding defensively by asking questions in an insulting or outright attacking tone.

Your experts do best if they don't consider the question an attack (regardless of vocal tone), but rather as an opportunity to further clarify and educate. Follow this advice and your expert won't feel tempted to negate or fight everything opposing counsel says. Encourage your expert to simply listen attentively to the content of the question, allowing he or she to answer in ways that may surprise opposing counsel and help your expert maintain a positive footing.

For example, opposing counsel asks, verging on the insulting: "Isn't it true that the validity of the psychological tests you gave is suspect?" Instead of answering defensively: "I personally examined the validity scales of every test," a more constructive answer might be "Certainly, validity is always a primary concern, as are reliability, standardization and other such issues." Using the question to clarify an issue, the expert scores with the jurors and in the process sidetracked opposing counsel (who was undoubtedly expecting the defensive response).

Here is another example of the type of question which tends to put experts on the defensive: "Isn't it true that Drs. X, Y and Z have written that the test you used to come to your conclusions is subjective and unreliable?" Experts who get angry and defensive in response to this line of questioning do not do well with jurors. Suggest that your expert concede what is indefensible, and support that which is: "Indeed, these doctors say that under certain circumstances – unlike the circumstances in this case – this test may be of limited value." Opposing counsel is now obliged to ask your expert about those "certain circumstances," (or if not, you can on re-direct) and your expert can reiterate how this test has value in this particular circumstance.

Keeping expert cool inevitably paves the way to a more credible response.

Facebook & Your Client: Win, Lose or Draw?

A New York Times article (March 10, 2009) described the recent experience of an NYPD officer who was cross-examined over material on his Facebook page. While the officer's posted comment that the movie "Training Day" was a good lesson in police procedure was a joke, it did not play out that way in front of the jury. The defense attorney successfully used the officer’s public postings to paint a picture of an overly aggressive officer willing to bend the rules.

E-discovery does not end with a perusal of emails! E-discovery can readily extend to any postings on the Internet. Most lawyers will attempt to discover what, if any, Internet presence opponent’s client or key witnesses have. Where they are sometimes remiss, is in discovering their own client’s presence. Whether you represent plaintiff or defendant, it is wise to check with your client whether he or she has a Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Orkut/Hi5/Friendster/LinkedIn/StumbleUpon/etc. presence, and whether that presence conforms with how your client wishes to be perceived in Court. If not, deleting the page isn’t an answer: some Courts have allowed the retrieval of deleted pages. You need to know how your client is holding him/herself out on the Internet in order to defuse it, ignore it, or applaud it. All three are valid options.

The Lie, Continued...

As much as jurors resent a witness who lies, you must have inconvertible evidence that someone is out and out lying in order to even suggest it.

Even then, it’s best to let the jurors come to the “Lie” conclusion on their own. As Bob Pave, of Pave & Bogaards puts it: “I never say that somebody is lying. I say that it's not exactly "correct," not exactly "truthful," not exactly "forthcoming" and stuff like that. I lead them right up to the edge and let them attach the word "lie" to the plaintiff, all by themselves. [e.g., Hell, it's a downright lie.]”

An effective way to help the jurors get there, is to use a “Chart of Inconsistencies.” As defense, for example, you could bullet on a chart what the plaintiff told Dr. A, the different story he told Dr. B, and the yet more different tale he told at deposition. Or as plaintiff, you could bullet on a chart what defendant told the police, what was discovered in emails, what she swore to in interrogatories. Such a chart alone, since it references facts, has more impact on today’s jurors than your forceful expostulation “And he lied!!” ever could.