Address Your Jurors’ Overriding Concerns: Safety & Trust

 

Did you know that the United States is near the top of all countries in terms of anxiety? The U.S. comes in a close second behind Greece in adult stress levels—55 percent according to the Gallup World Emotions Report. This number is 20 percent higher than the global average.

We live in one of the most affluent societies in the world, and yet the majority of our population does not feel safe. Safety is, put bluntly, Americans’ overriding concern.

How does this matter to you? Whether you are plaintiff or defense, you must take into account how your jurors will perceive the safety factors inherent in your case. This does not merely apply to product liability, medical malpractice or personal injury cases, where safety concerns are usually obvious. This applies equally to business contract cases, disputes over IP, even eminent domain.

Safety, you see, isn’t just about physical safety. Safety is also about emotional safety, the ability to trust--to trust self and others, to trust those we deal with day to day, be they drivers or doctors or everything in between, to trust businesses, corporations, and other institutions. When you can’t trust someone or something, you don’t feel safe.

Americans’ overriding concern is safety. Your jurors’ overriding concerns revolve around safety. Pay attention to the safety and trust issues in your case, and address them appropriately.

Post-Pandemic Jurors’ Mixed Feelings About Corporations

 

As we slowly come out of the pandemic, albeit in fits and starts, juror attitudes have understandably shifted in these difficult and trying times. It is inevitable that among your jurors there will be those who are recently unemployed, some for the first time in their work-lives, along with others who have lost savings, homes, opportunities, even careers.

 

This has corporate defendants obviously concerned, for if corporations have often fared poorly in jurors’ eyes, many 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 malfeasance, comes jurors’ disapproval of any case that smacks of the frivolous or the not “truly madly deeply” justified. Especially if plaintiff’s win could 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 today’s unemployed are many who were in the 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 Lingering Impact of Misinformation

 

In trial – or even at deposition – it’s often tempting to dismiss an aspect of opposing counsel’s theory as insignificant, or too “out there” for jurors to adopt, and therefore offer little in the way of an alternative theory. This is not a wise choice.

Results of a study published in Scientific American show how despite the correction of misinformation, people tend to retain misinformation. Subjects in the study were told first that an accident involved a busload of elderly individuals. One group of subjects was told that was incorrect, but not given an alternative version of who was on the bus. Another group was told that the accident actually involved a college hockey team. 

The group given an alternate version (“hockey team”) was less susceptible to responding with the original “misinformed” version (“elderly individuals”), yet even they agreed with certain statements such as “the passengers found it difficult to exit the bus because they were frail.” How can this be? Shouldn’t logic prevail? 

One wishes. Unfortunately, misinformation tends to linger in memory following the rule of precedence: what’s learned first tends to stick with us longer. So it is critical that you counter any theory, or expert witness testimony, or other evidence that you consider “misinformation,” boldly and with as much visual assistance (graphics, video, PowerPoint slides) as you can. Make sure that what sticks in memory is your interpretation of the case, not opposing counsel’s.

Build Juror-Compelling Stories: Use the “Boy Meets Girl” Formula

Facts are boring. Stories are riveting. Facts put jurors to sleep. Stories keep them awake. Facts are essential to the case; stories are what make those facts persuasive. Each case has a story to tell no matter how apparently dry or complex the case may be.

At this point, plaintiff lawyers usually chortle with glee, they’re all about story! Except when the case is about eminent domain, or the intricacies of a business contract. They then grumble that business and contract cases lack the excitement of a story. For that matter, defense lawyers have the same complaint when it comes to business cases and more. Too often, defense lawyers complain that their side doesn't have a story to tell. This is false. A lawsuit is first about people, and it is the people side of a lawsuit that engages jurors.

A story doesn’t have to be long. In fact, long-winded stories are almost as frustrating to jurors as no story at all. A story encompasses your theme and gives the major points of the case. Preferably three points. That’s really all you need. Challenge yourself to finding your case’s story and then reducing it to the quintessential “Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl.” A beginning, middle and end. Preferably with your client cast as the hero.

Short, sweet, and to the point; that’s effective Courtroom story-telling!

Answer a Primordial Question for the Jurors: Who?

The names, acronyms and abbreviations so familiar to you, are not to the jurors. You may think that by saying, for example, “Acme Building Supply, which we’ll now call ABS for convenience” is enough to warrant saying “ABS” through the rest of your trial.

But “ABS” has no guts to it, has no uniqueness, no personality, as it were. As laborious as it may be for you to repeat the full appelation, “Acme Building Supply” has a history. It’s associated with events, persons--it has a life. “ABS” is just another bit of alphabet soup.

Be sure to use full names of persons, entities or objects throughout your trial. Avoid the use of pronouns or abbreviated references. Jurors often have trouble keeping track of who did what to whom. They will be totally lost if they must also concentrate on which "he," "she," or "it" you are now referring to. Certainly, well-known abbreviations are acceptable, but generally speaking, abbreviations used too often only serve to confuse jurors. A confused juror is an unsympathetic juror. An unsympathetic juror is the one who could cause you to lose your case.