Facts are important. Facts are foundational. Facts are critical to your case. However, even with powerful well-documented facts on your side, if you can’t place those facts in a context, into a story that makes sense to and appeals to your jurors’ worldview – you risk losing your case.
What’s your jurors’ worldview? It’s whatever is primary in your particular jury pool’s day to day life. For example, generally speaking, the recession preoccupies all of us, but specifically, is your jury pool more threatened by layoffs or a lack of buying power? By having to take on second jobs to make ends meet, or not having any jobs to take on?
This is one of the avantages of focus groups. When mock jurors are properly recruited from your particular jury pool, they can tell you a lot about your eventual panel’s worldview. About how your story is or is not supported by that worldview.
Now you have impact in the Courtroom.
Showing posts with label courtroom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label courtroom. Show all posts
Friday, October 2, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
