"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.

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.

Wall Street Meltdown Impacting How Jurors View Business Clients

Listen to Dr. Noelle Nelson on The Legal Broadcast Network.

Topic: Wall Street Meltdown Impacting How Jurors View Attorneys & Business Clients

To hear the 10-minute interview, go to:

http://thelegalbroadcastnetwork.squarespace.com/the-lbn-blog/2009/6/25/wall-street-meltdown-impacting-how-jurors-view-attorneys-bus.html

Recession Revelations & Your Jurors

The continuing recession and revelations it brings about corporate and other wrong-doing – be it excesses, or cavalier squandering of the ordinary citizen’s financial well-being – have significantly altered juror attitudes. Jurors are no longer taking the position of “What the heck, everybody does it,” rather they are holding lawyers and all parties in the action to a higher standard. For example, taking advantage of others by virtue of contractual technicalities and loopholes is less viewed as a flaky but ordinary way of operating in the world, and more as an unacceptable moral failing. Issues of abandonment and betrayal are rarely excused. Turning one’s back on others and leaving them in a helpless or difficult situation, is virtually always unacceptable.

Jurors are favoring lawyers who express sincerity and genuine belief in their client’s cause, are well prepared, and respectful towards the legal process and all involved. Jurors are less convinced by lawyers who focus on the “letter of the law” and more persuaded by those who incorporate the “spirit of the law” into their arguments. Jurors are more attuned to anything that smacks of a lawyer’s attempt to pull the wool over their eyes, and likely to quickly discredit that lawyer and his or her arguments.

Jurors appear to be more favorable towards the lawyer who admits to problem areas of a case, and then proceeds to give common-sense, believable reasons for those actions. Jurors do not appear to be looking for perfection, or favoring only those “without sin,” but rather for honesty and other “straight-shooter” type qualities, which are quintessential American ideals - sorely lacking these past few years in many a juror’s mind.

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.

Jurors and The Lie

The first mark of a person worthy of juror respect is honesty, someone who doesn’t lie, cheat or steal. Persons – or entities – can be guilty of all manner of wrong-doing, but as long as they don’t lie about it or try to cover it up (cheating & stealing the truth), jurors will be more forgiving.

Why is this important? Because jurors, as impartial and reasoned as we would like them to be – aren’t. Jurors are people first, jurors second, and people all over the world are motivated by their emotions. Emotion literally means “to move.”

So, whether you are defense or plaintiff, if you can show how the other side’s client/witnesses lied, cheated or stole, you are more likely to rouse the jurors to righteous indignation or downright anger.

With that, you can help move the jurors over to your interpretation of the facts. And that’s what winning your case is all about.

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.

Need to Prepare a Wittness for Depo or Trial? Here are 7 Rules to Tell Your Client

As important as the evidence and facts are to a case, so is credible witness testimony. Without clear and confident witnesses, a trial's outcome may be less than what you have worked so hard to achieve.

Unfortunately, lawyers often only have time to concentrate on substantive issues when preparing a client for testimony. There is usually little time to focus on how clients can communicate credibly and present themselves appropriately at depo or in court. This leaves witnesses to their own devices, which could spell disaster in the witness chair.

Here are seven rules to tell your witness before depo or trial. If they follow these rules, they'll go a long way toward providing credible and persuasive testimony--but remember--they are only a supplement to sound legal counsel.

Keep your body language open and undefended. Don’t cross one or both of your arms over your chest, it’s read as defensiveness. Avoid slumping, slouching, twisting your body to one side, leaning to either side, or supporting your chin with your hand, elbow on the table.

Be consistent. If you’re asked the same question in slightly different ways, stick with your original answer. Only change it if it’s inaccurate, not just because opposing counsel repeats the question.

Give the information requested, not more. Don’t volunteer. If you’re asked for one example, give one, not two. If you’re asked for your date of birth, don’t volunteer where you were born and how happy your Mom was.

Answering the document question: “Isn’t it true that you signed the May 3rd agreement?” “May I see the document please?” Always review whatever document is being referred to before answering, even if you think you know what it is.

Withstand personality influence. Opposing counsel may act like your best buddy - casual, easy-going, warm-hearted, friendly and nice. Don’t be swayed. It’s the “honey attracts better than vinegar” approach, and you’re still the fly.

Be wary of the “yes” set. Opposing counsel wants to get you to agree to their version of the facts. When you find yourself agreeing with opposing counsel – as sometimes you must (“The earth is round, isn’t it?”), listen extra carefully to the next questions. The more times you say “yes” the more likely it is you’ll say “yes” when you shouldn’t.

Deal with inconsistencies appropriately. You will inevitably say something on the stand that is different from what you stated at deposition. Opposing counsel will pounce on it. “At your deposition, you said you didn’t see the specs, but now you tell us you did. Were you lying then or now?” Stay calm. “I’ve had more time to think about it, and I realized I did see the specs.” Your unruffled response will tell the jurors it’s no big deal.

--------------------------------------------
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.