Train Your Expert Witness to Educate

If you are blessed with an expert witness who not only is proficient in his/her area of expertise, but also juror-sympathetic, count yourself among the lucky few, and hit “delete.” If, however, you sometimes find yourself working with an expert who, although proficient in the required expertise, but less than juror-sympathetic, read on.

A common problem is the expert who holds an attitude of “This is so because I, THE expert, say it is so.” Jurors are not convinced by such arrogance, even if it is well-deserved. What does convince jurors is the expert who seeks to educate the jurors, rather than impose his/her opinion. Encourage your experts to present information in a way that guides the jurors through a series of logical steps that results in an inescapable conclusion that just happens to coincide with said expert’s opinion. 

You can help your expert get there by challenging him/her in prep sessions with questions such as: “Why do you hold this opinion? Couldn’t it be X instead?” “Explain it to me as you would to a high school student.” “How did you arrive at this opinion? What’s the logic, step by step?” Remind your expert as often as necessary that their job is not to defend/plead the case – that’s your job. Their job is to educate the jurors to why your interpretation is the one that should prevail. Educating is far more compelling than arguing or fighting with opposing counsel - which is, more often than not, a losing battle. And you’re there to win!

"You Need a Timeline!"

Timelines are essential to just about any case. I’ve been teased by various attorneys I’ve worked with that I always recommend a timeline, and indeed it’s true.

But there is method to my repeated "You need a timeline!" Movement of events across time is how jurors anchor testimony in their minds. It’s how they create “story” for themselves.

And story is the single most compelling way to get facts and information across to the jurors in a coherent, persuasive manner.

The reason a timeline works so well, is it answers the fundamental question of story-telling: “And then what happened?” It ties together apparently disparate testimony or pieces of evidence. It grounds any narrative in logic, by assigning order to the events.

Timelines need to be designed around a horizontal axis representing time, with “flags” or “boxes” pegged at the appropriate moments in time. Timelines don’t need to be fancy, but different entities should have different colored “flags,” for example, to differentiate them easily. Beyond that, a graphics designer can help give a timeline more visual impact.

The temptation is often to put too much information on a timeline: it’s a tool meant to emphasize and support, not reiterate all the testimony. Several uncluttered, easy-to-read timelines are better than a single one crowded with too much for the eye to readily grasp.

Don't Let Your Jurors Miss the Gorilla in the Room

People were asked, in a classic experiment, to watch a short video in which six people-three in white shirts and three in black shirts - passed basketballs around, and to count the number of passes made by the people in white shirts. At some point, a gorilla strolled into the middle of the action, faced the camera and thumped its chest, and then left, having spent nine seconds on screen.

Although intuitively, we all think we’d see the gorilla - how could something so obvious go completely unnoticed? But the truth of the matter is that half of the people who watched the video and counted the passes missed the gorilla! It was as though the gorilla was invisible.

This research, conducted by scientists Chabris and Simons (“The Invisible Gorilla”) has led to further studies on what is known as “unintentional blindness and deafness.” They found that when we’re focused on one thing, we easily miss other, potentially very important, things.

This is why, when it comes to winning in front of a jury, I strongly recommend that you present your most important evidence/testimony both visually and auditorily. You never know which member of the jury is focused on something that renders them unintentionally deaf or blind to your critical point.

It’s also why repetition is important in a trial, and why review at time of close, matters. Don’t rely on spoken review of testimony, but include a visual review, using boards or other graphics, such as check charts, to sum up your interpretation of the facts.

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.

Not A Passive Jury Anymore

Sitting sedately in the jury box, jurors appear to be a captive, passive audience, receptive to the lawyers’ and witnesses’ every utterance. Would it were so. Jurors are hardly passive these days. They are informed and have opinion on a broad range of matters, even if mostly at a superficial “news caption” level.

After all, most jurors have access to and use--some obsessively--every social networking platform available, to speak to each other. They refer to blogs, media outlets, and other venues to converse, compare and discuss everything from the latest sports-figure scandal to the effectiveness of our overseas troops to the political impact of Ms. Palin’s eye-roll. It is a mistake to believe this is a habit exercised only by the young. Every age group now twitters, facebooks and blogs, with the possible exception of the very elderly. Notice, I say “possible.”

Juror patience with the often excruciating minutiae of evidence is poor. They get their information and communicate in micro-bites. The one complaint I hear over and over in jury debriefings is “Get to the point!” Jurors are willing to pay attention to and attempt to understand the evidence that supports your point – once you get there. Too often, a lawyer will lay out such a meticulous foundation that by the time the lawyer gets to the reason for all that effort, the jurors don’t care. Certainly, foundation must be laid, but whenever possible, start with an “umbrella sentence” that clues the jurors in to your point, so they are oriented, and therefore patient, with what follows.

How to Appeal to Silent Generation Jurors

Because we are living longer, and living for the most part healthier as we age, you may find a surprising number of “Silent Generation” jurors on your panel. These are individuals who were born roughly between 1925 and 1945. They are Baby Boomer and Generation X parents, whose grandchildren, typically, are Millenials.

How is this information relevant to your success? Members of the Silent Generation are likely to be relatively silent during voir dire, and you may have little opportunity to find out what matters to them. Yet this is a generation for whom a great deal matters, and you need to know what.

The Silent Generation is a generation of helpers. Their greatest contribution to our society was to humanize their world: this is the generation that produced the great Civil Rights Leaders and almost every leader of the Women’s Movement. What do they want now? To help ensure a safe world for their beloved grandchildren. And they do listen to those grandchildren. After all, Millenials too are community minded and seek to make a difference.

Take into account, as you develop your case themes, what matters to the generations on your panel. You will have far more juror-appeal and persuasiveness.

Don’t Whine! Win Juror Votes with Witness “Can Do” Attitude (Part II, Defense)

If plaintiff’s counsel’s task is to make sure the client/witness doesn’t alienate jurors with a purely “they done me wrong” victim mentality, defense’s is different.
“Don’t whine” might be better stated “Don’t defend,” which is mightily challenging for defendants on the stand, who generally believe they are unjustly accused. Yet the defendant who argues with opposing counsel, whose testimony is a litany of “Yes, buts” and who attempts to evade plaintiff’s counsel’s most basic question, will not find favor with jurors.
Instead, explain to your defense witnesses that during cross, at best, they will only be able to give a qualified “yes” or “no” (as in “At that time, yes” or “In that situation, no”), and at all costs must not argue with opposing counsel (“That’s not how it was, I/they. . .”). Reassure your witness by role-playing with them how direct will go, not just by telling them “Don’t worry, I’ll unscramble all that in direct.”
The “can do” attitude for defense witnesses comes through on direct, when the witness, if and as is appropriate, educates jurors to their role, their experience, their situation. An attitude of imparting information, of sharing an experience, will gain far more sympathy with jurors than witness belligerence.

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.

Keep Clients Happy by Keeping Them In the Loop

Every case has its problems; some can be anticipated, others cannot. In their eagerness to maintain their credibility and be effective problem-solvers for their clients, lawyers frequently make the mistake of failing to inform clients of problems in an appropriate and effective manner, or of failing to inform them in timely fashion. Inevitably, you will find yourself at some point in time with the double headache of trying to appease an unpleasantly surprised and irritated client, and of trying to resolve the original problem.

Most clients need and want to be informed about the troublesome aspects of their case. Client-satisfaction surveys show that clients complain mostly that lawyers do not inform them about problems until the problems are so big they can no longer be ignored and that lawyers are unrealistic, usually minimizing problems and overestimating their ability to deal with them quickly and easily.

Clients dislike surprises, especially unpleasant ones. This holds true for small surprises, such as finding out at the last minute that a meeting was rescheduled, and for large surprises, such as suddenly realizing that the worst possible jury has just been impaneled for their trial.

Diminish the surprise factor by informing your clients of potential problems as soon as you begin working the case. Be upfront with your clients. Do your best to keep them in the loop as much as possible. Hopefully, you’ll avert most of those problems and your clients will be the more satisfied because of it.

How Knowing Your Jury’s Worldview Gives You Impact

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.

For Deposition Success: Speak to the Jurors!

Your client is a rational, mature businessperson. You expect them to do well at their upcoming deposition, after all, they have plenty of real-world experience, and of course you go over the facts of the case with them as well as some deposition basics. You are subsequently horrified when they waffle, or get angry, or are evasive, or volunteer or do any of the multitude of the other communication sins that constitute poor testimony.

But here’s the thing: whether your witness is a CEO or a homemaker, he or she must be prepared as rigorously for deposition as they are for trial. Why? Because the vast majority of cases don’t go to trial, and depositions are critical in determining your effectiveness in negotiating the best possible settlement for your client. Yet time after time, lawyers fail to prepare witnesses sufficiently for deposition. The reasons are simple: too much to do, too little time.

There are, however, some basic guidelines that can help your witness at their deposition in the absence of your being able to conduct full-fledged video-taped role play with them.

Here's a tip: tell your witness that although it may seem like he is responding to opposing counsel’s questions, in truth, the witness is addressing the jurors. It doesn’t matter whether or not the matter ever gets to trial, when the witness responds as if he speaking to jurors, being informative rather than defensive, polite and even-tempered despite opposing counsel’s ploys, the quality of his testimony improves radically.

Today's Jurors’ Mixed Feelings About Corporations

National research (Harris Interactive, 2009) shows that a majority of Americans place “a lot” of blame on banks (76%), Wall Street (57%) and big business (55%). In these difficult and trying times, juror attitudes are changing. It is inevitable that among your jurors there will be those who are recently un-employed, some for the first time in their work-lives, and those who have lost savings, homes, opportunities, even careers.

This has corporate defendants very concerned, for if corporations have often fared poorly in jurors’ eyes, they are doing even worse now. However, this is hardly the time for plaintiff’s counsel to cry “Huzzah,” for along with the public’s disdain for corporate greed and malfaisance, comes the public’s disapproval of any case that smacks of the frivolous or the not “truly madly deeply” justified, especially if plaintiff’s win would mean a cut in jobs for employees.

At least some of the jurors in any given panel understand the consequence of large awards. Don’t forget that among the currently unemployed are many who were in the upper-middle white collar strata of the workforce, and that these unemployed are able to educate their less-informed fellow jurors on the realities of what happens to employees, their jobs, wages and benefits, when corporations are hit with huge verdicts.

Whether representing plaintiff or defendant, keep in mind the current composition of your jury pool and current juror attitudes. This will go far in helping you win your case.

The Nuisance of Jurors

Trials would be so much easier if you didn’t have to deal with jurors. Jurors wander off mentally during your most critical testimony, they’re distracted by an itch or a lawyer’s mannerisms, they’re irritated by an expert’s vocal tone, they disapprove of a witness’s attitude. Jurors misunderstand the law, making it up as they go along. Jurors impose their own version of what’s right or wrong, what’s negligence, what should be the standard - be it of care, warning, safety or other. Jurors deliberate as a group, which introduces the whole notion of group dynamics, complicating the matter further. Need I go on?

But jurors must be dealt with, and more importantly, we must deal with how they come to the decisions they make. For the better you can determine or discern what impacts those decisions, the more likely you are to succeed at trial.

This is where intense, targeted use of the pre-trial focus group can be especially valuable. Instead of letting focus group “jurors” elect a foreperson and talk over each other to arrive at a consensual decision, have a facilitator ask probing questions of each and every juror, to analyze how each juror arrives at their various conclusions, as well as observe how group dynamics are affecting those conclusions.

Knowledge is power.

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.

Tell Your Story With Timelines

The more complex the case, the more important it is that you simplify and clarify events and circumstances for the jurors. A timeline is one of the most effective ways to organize facts in a way that makes them relevant to jurors. We are used to stories being presented chronologically – the chronology alone often will tell the story. Use a timeline, or several, whenever possible. You can create these yourself fairly easily with any decent graphics program, and there are also specialized trial software programs available for this purpose.

Timelines, whether on a board or projected onto a screen, should be presented with time on the horizontal axis whenever possible. It demonstrates the movement of time from left to right, a progression jurors are very familiar with. When presented with a timeline depicting time on a vertical axis, jurors are much more readily confused.

A horizontal timeline allows you to show events above and below the line representating time, be that in minutes, days or years. This is a very effective way to organize information, You can, for example, show the evidence that directly favors your case in fact “flags” above the date line, and show the inconsistencies in opposing counsel’s case in the fact flags below the date line. Or, for example, you can contrast plaintiff’s stated behavior at points in time on the above line fact flags, with the medical reports on the below the line fact flags. Timelines of any kind should be used creatively, not just as markers in time, but as ways to tell your story even more persuasively.

Jurors’ Desire to Improve Things

One of the ways people make decisions when faced with a number of options is to translate each option into how they will feel emotionally about whatever the anticipated result is. The option that yields the best anticipated emotional outcome is more likely to be chosen.

For example, improving safety is a moral action. Attempting to get companies to improve safety with big verdicts feels good. The thinking goes roughly like this: “If we can’t make them care about safety because it’s the right thing to do, maybe we can make them care about safety because it’s the more profitable thing to do.” Being virtuous, on the side of what is right for the common or greater good, makes it easier for jurors to justify huge verdicts. People can feel good about themselves making such a decision.

Plaintiff’s counsel can use the above to help get the desired outcome. Defense counsel can use an understanding of the above to considerably weaken such an argument by pointing out all through the case, the many ways in which the company attends to safety.

There are two sides to every coin . . .

--------------------------------------------

Noelle C. Nelson, Ph.D., is a trial consultant who provides trial/jury strategy, witness preparation and focus groups for attorneys. She is the author of the booklet, "101 Winning Tips: How to Give a Good Deposition and Testify Well in Court." E-mail: nnelson@dr.noellenelson.com, www.dr.noellenelson.com.