Connect to Jurors With the Specificity of “Who”

You must connect with jurors if they are to find you convincing and persuasive. One of the prime often most neglected ways to connect effectively with jurors is to get them up to speed with the “Who” in the case early on. Jurors feel disconnected when they can’t readily figure out who’s doing what to whom and why that should matter.

Use organizational charts and other visuals that vividly illustrate the flow of communication or authority from one party to the other. Symbolize the relevance of each party to the case by using icons or other graphic devices. Remind jurors of those relationships from time to time as your case proceeds (i.e., "Is it your testimony that Mr. Smith, Ann Jones's boss, went on to say…”).

Be sure to use full names of persons, entities or objects throughout the case. As repetitious it may seem, complete references are vital. Use of pronouns or abbreviated references to important entities or objects is confusing to jurors. Jurors often have trouble just keeping track of who did what to whom. They will be totally lost if they must also concentrate on which "he," "she," or "it" the lawyer is now referring to. Certainly, well-known abbreviations are acceptable, but generally speaking, abbreviations used too often only serve to confuse jurors, and a confused juror is an unsympathetic, disconnected juror.

This you cannot afford, if you are to win your case.

Neglect Jurors’ Need for “What Happened?” at Your Peril

Your primary focus in preparing for trial is inevitably the issues in the case. You may not focus much on “What will the jurors want to know about this case?” because you figure they’ll want to know about--the issues. Of course they will! But they’ll want a lot more than that.

Jurors want enough information to be able to construct a coherent story of what happened. This is true regardless of the type of case, and whether you’re defense or plaintiff. If you don’t give that information to them, they’ll make it up for themselves. That fact alone should be enough to give you nightmares.

For example, in an accident case involving any kind of vehicle, jurors want to know the speed of the vehicle/s, whether the driver/s, pedestrian or whoever else was involved had been drinking or taking drugs, and the driving records of the parties involved.

Jurors want to know these factors regardless of whether speed, drugs or driving records have anything to do with the case. It’s as if the jurors' common sense demands that these facts be known before they can look at other factors. Don’t for a moment assume that if alcohol, for example, is not at issue, that simply not mentioning it is sufficient for the jurors. Hardly! To the degree that the law allows, these factors and other "common sense" issues should be made known.

From business cases to medical malpractice and everything in between, jurors want information that allows them to reconstruct “what happened,” even if liability is already stipulated. And in the absence of having evidence of “what happened,” which occurs frequently, at the very least your expert should have a strong opinion as to the most likely “what happened.”