Use “Less is More” to Win in Court

 

Some courts are lenient with the amount of time allotted for a trial, some are not. It certainly can seem impossible, sometimes, to jam the amount of evidence and testimony you have in the number of hours permitted.

And yet, as is so often true of many things in life “Less is more.”

On being debriefed, some jurors stated that the matter at hand was treated with less than full consideration as the trial stretched on and on. Jurors began discussing plans for the various events in their lives, sharing thoughts about how to deal with children, difficult bosses, and so on, clearly impatient and bored with what they were experiencing as an unnecessarily long process.

Jurors who may have had the patience to sit through long trials and long deliberations some 10 or so years ago are no longer willing to be held hostage past what they consider a sufficient rendering of the facts and testimony. Our world has sped up tremendously: we abbreviate everything, we rely on bullets and headlines, and we expect everything to happen quickly, as in “now.”

This is one of the great advantages of focus groups: attorneys are forced to reduce their entire case to a mere hour and a half, which puts a glaring spotlight on what is essential and what could be left aside.

Yes, you still must get across your points, you must still develop testimony and present evidence appropriately. However, a great deal can often be trimmed from the presentation of your case without losing impact. If anything, you generally gain impact from being succinct.

Pressuring Potential Jurors in Voir Dire Can Backfire at Trial

 

Time after time, what I discover in jury debriefings is that jurors don’t like being “interrogated” during voir dire. They don’t mind being questioned, but they heartily dislike attorney attempts to force answers out of them and especially resent being pressured into a “yes” or “no” response.

Now this wouldn’t be so critical if it weren’t for the fact that people who feel pressured into a position, retaliate by disliking the person who pressured them. Cornered animals bite. So do jurors.

As tempting as it is to finally get that unqualified “yes” or “no” from a juror, be aware of the consequences. A juror who doesn’t like you will be far less susceptible to your arguments, and may very well damn you during deliberations. Not only that but the unqualified “yes” or “no” is often the juror simply trying to wriggle free from your unwanted persistence.

You may receive a sufficiently truthful and more accurate response by framing your question differently such that it doesn’t antagonize your juror unnecessarily: “Is it more likely that you would . . .” People respond well to choice, as well as to the word “would,” which is experienced as non-invasive.

Want to Win? Start Off On The Right Foot With Prospective Jurors

 

When prospective jurors walk into the courtroom, they only know one thing for sure: the courtroom is His/Her Honor’s private reserve, and the Judge’s word is law. Everything about the physical layout of the courtroom says “In this room, the Judge is Top Dog, and whatever they say is set in stone.” The Judge sits higher than everyone else. All must rise upon the Judge’s entrance, and may only be seated when told to do so. And whatever the Judge says, however erudite or nonsensical it may seem, becomes “what is” in that Courtroom.

So, imagine my surprise when I observe lawyers go directly against a Judge’s “what I expect in my courtroom.”  I know, from years of experience, that jurors, whether prospective or empaneled, ding any lawyer who fails to respect a Judge’s stated orders. The most common failure is the failure to respect time. For example, the Judge says “Your mini-opening will be two minutes, no longer.” The lawyer launches into their mini-opening, the two-minute mark is hit, the Judge cuts the lawyer off – sometimes, mid-word. The lawyer, hurt and surprised, sits down. The prospective jurors look coldly at the lawyer. They heard the rule, why couldn’t the lawyer obey it?

You see, prospective jurors MUST appear when summoned, MUST be on time, MUST turn off their mobile devices, MUST sit where told to sit, and the list goes on. When the Judge tells you what you MUST do, you’re well advised to do it. Failure to do so makes you disrespectful in prospective jurors’ eyes, and less worthy of their consideration. Much harder to convince.

Since your jurors are within that pool of prospective jurors, abiding by the Judge’s edicts right from the git-go is the easiest, quickest way to get their approval.

Start off on the right foot with your jurors, and you have a much better chance of ending on the right foot.

How Your Emotions Can Help You Win Your Case

 

The question of whether to trust our logic or trust our emotions is rarely brought up in the context of legal matters, at least not from the lawyer’s point of view. Certainly, we discuss endlessly how this or that prospective juror’s mindset (highly emotional versus highly rational) might impact our case, but not usually how the lawyer’s emotion would.

However, research by M. Pham, L. Lee and A. Stephen provides interesting insights into the positive impact lawyer emotions might have in winning cases.

Their study showed that people who were more likely to trust their feelings were also more likely to accurately predict the outcome of a particular event. The researchers call this phenomenon the “emotional oracle effect.”

How does this apply to winning your case? Tune in to your emotions. If, when preparing a witness, you sense that something is “off,” don’t dismiss that because your logic tells you all is well. Trust your emotions enough to say something like “I notice that . . .” or “I’m wondering if. . .” which is a non-threatening way to probe further and take a look at whether or not what you sense with this witness has some basis in reality.

The more you practice listening to the guidance of your emotions, the more you will be able to discern which to trust.

Similarly, you can review the demographics of your prospective jurors all you want and weed out the obvious “bad apples,” but when it comes down to that moment in voir dire when you’re between “keep Juror A versus Juror B,” tune in to your emotions. Listen inside yourself for that intuitive hit and go with it.

Your mind is bigger than your analytic prowess. Use all of it, rational and emotive, in the service of your success.

Get Those Undecideds On Your Side: With Jury Instructions

Despite the best efforts of all involved, jury instructions remain obscure and confusing to all but the most legalese-savvy jurors. Cases should be won or lost on their merits, but too often, cases are lost (or unsatisfactory verdicts obtained) because the jurors either did not understand the jury instructions, or how those jury instructions should be specifically applied to the verdict form.

Clarifying jury instructions so jurors can make their way through the verdict form fully understanding what their vote means, is important. That’s step one. But then it’s critical to move on to step two: letting the jurors know during closing argument not only how they should vote (according to you), but why.

It’s the “why” that is often left out. You need to arm the jurors already decided by your arguments with sufficient ammunition to convince the undecideds – reiterating the evidence/testimony simply isn’t enough.

“Why” consists of firmly tying specific evidence supporting your case to specific verdict questions, preferably in bullet form, which is easier for your decided-jurors to remember and use in their “Here’s why” during deliberations.

Undecided jurors are your “make it or break it” jurors, and they only make up their minds during deliberations. If you don’t give those jurors already on your side the information they need to swing the undecideds over, you leave the verdict up to chance. Or worse, up to ill-formed, confused, half-hearted attempts, for in the absence of solid rationale, what else can your decided-jurors argue?

Want Powerful Testimony? Adopt the Power-Sit

 

Witnesses are nervous enough already at the thought of testifying. Being loaded down with 10 body-language directives from well-meaning attorneys doesn’t necessarily enhance their testimony.

I have found that one simple directive ‘fixes’ a whole host of body-language problems. That is the “Power-Sit.”

Simply put, the witness sits with their rear planted firmly in the “L” of the chair, which assures good posture without having to think about it. They then are asked to avoid leaning to the left or right and to keep their back in contact with the back of the chair at all times. That the more nervous they get, the more the witness can press their back into the back of the chair. It becomes their ‘secure’ or ‘safe’ place.

The impression jurors receive from the “Power-Sit” is that of a confident, straightforward, credible witness – one whose testimony is far more likely to be believed than the testimony from a witness who slumps, or leans to the left or right, or aggressively forward, to give but a few examples.

What a platform for effective testimony! Without your witness having to remember 10 different directives, they only have to focus on one. Now you are free to focus on the substantive issues in your witness’ testimony, knowing their body language won’t be contradicting the testimony.

Who Wants A Perceived Liar On The Stand? Not You!

 

People aren’t very good at detecting liars. Studies show that people’s hit rate for detecting lies (54%) is slightly above pure chance (50%), which is good news for liars, but bad news for you in the courtroom.

Why? Because people tend to pay attention to certain cues to determine if someone is lying, but these cues may mean something entirely different.

Take the “vocal immediacy” cue, for example. Vocal immediacy is the directness with which someone responds to a question. The more roundabout or vague the response, the more likely jurors will figure your witness is lying. However, your witness may simply be thinking out loud, which sounds roundabout. Or your witness may not know what to say, and rather than answer “I don’t know,” or “I don’t understand the question” may resort to a vague mulling which again, looks like lying.

Another cue is “uncooperativeness.” Jurors commonly assume that a witness being uncooperative is hiding something, or being dishonest. Yet often an uncooperative witness is one who argues with opposing counsel rather than answer the question asked, or attempts to force their view of the facts into every response, rather than let their attorney do the litigating.

Your best witness—among other things—responds directly to the question asked, and leaves the lawyering to the lawyer.

The best tool to help your witnesses get to jury-worthy credibility is to use videotaped role-play in preparing them to testify. You can’t afford to let your witnesses get away with behaviors that could be mistaken by the jurors as those of a liar.

The Power of Privacy: Juror Questionnaires

 

You would think that potential jurors, knowing full well that their written juror questionnaires will be scrutinized by the lawyers on both sides, if not also by trial consultants and other professionals, would respond to written queries the same as they do to oral voir dire. Certainly the same as jurors would respond to Your Honor at sidebar or in chambers.

Not.

Fascinating research revealed something I long suspected (and relied on) from years of jury selection experience: people feel that what is between themselves and a sheet of paper is private. Potential jurors are most honest with their true thoughts and feelings in response to jury questionnaires, to a surprising degree.

Jurors in the study failed to answer truthfully to 67% of voir dire questions, to 33% of attorney sidebar questions, to fully 50% of judge sidebar questions, and even to 20% of questions asked in chambers.

What does this mean to you? Simple. Any time it is possible to use a jury questionnaire, use it! Jury questionnaires do not need to be arduous, overwrought documents. Streamlined and written for maximum effectiveness, juror questionnaires will give you the most truthful look at how your potential jurors think and feel.

Jury questionnaires can make all the difference to winning your case.

-------

A Winning Case Dr. Noelle Nelson recently consulted on:

Congratulations to A. Barry Cappello, Leila Noël, Larry Conlan and David Cousineau of Cappello & Noël LLP; Lieff Cabraser LLP; Keller Rohrback LLP and Audet & Partners, for their $230,000,000 successful settlement, reached after seven years of litigation in the class action lawsuit filed by fishers, fish processors and shoreline property residents (members of two classes) against Plains All American Pipeline, after a corroded pipeline spilled an estimated 15,000 barrels of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean in 2015. The spill devastated the fishing industry and polluted coastal properties from Santa Barbara County to Los Angeles County. 

Create a Trustworthy First Impression

 

First impressions are tremendously powerful. It takes less than a minute for you or your witnesses, to establish a credible first impression with the jurors, one which, once established, will be very difficult to change or alter in any way.

Credibility is founded on trustworthiness. And those we trust display more trustworthy behaviors: more head nods, more eye contact, more smiling, more open body posture. All of these behaviors are easily accessible to any of us. For that matter, when you’re in a relaxed, comfortable situation with friends or family, you’re likely to display these very behaviors without thinking about it.

Allow yourself to present yourself to the jurors more as who you are with friends – trusting and therefore trustworthy, and encourage your witnesses to do the same. The only caveat is that smiles must be appropriate to the situation, and when in trial, the moments where it is appropriate to smile are limited.

Dr. Noelle Nelson recently consulted on:

Congratulations to Gerard T. Carmody and Lindsay Combs of Carmody MacDonald P.C. (St. Louis) for their $2,300,000 unanimous Jury Verdict in City of Brentwood, Missouri v. TMD Property I, LLC, an eminent domain case involving the taking of 6+ acres of vacant undeveloped property in highly sought-after Brentwood, Missouri.  The City’s original offer was $170,000 which increased at trial to approximately $280,000.  The property owner, represented by Carmody MacDonald, testified to a range of value between $2,150,000 and $2,300,000.  The jury unanimously awarded $2,300,000.  Several jurors were moved to tears during the reading of the verdict.  In addition to the $2.3 million verdict, TMD Property I, LLC is also due over $230,000 in interest.

 

The True Value of Computer Animation

Most cases don’t settle, or are very challenging to settle, and end up in trial because there are grey areas in the case - situations or testimony which can be interpreted in different ways. Computer animation is often thought of as an effective, albeit expensive, way to show events. Research tells us, however, that there is a much more compelling reason to use computer animation.

Computer animation makes your interpretation of the event or situation concrete. There is always flux, indeterminate issues within any accident or event reconstruction, which the opposing experts will argue at length. But once the jurors see and hear for themselves your version of said reconstruction, they are far more inclined to believe it. And computer animation is an easy, immediately understandable, way to present your belief of “what happened” in a way that makes it real.

That being said, the facts must be solidly incorporated into the animation. Jurors will pick at the slightest incongruence between the known facts (skid marks, length of surgical incision) and the animation, and the persuasiveness of your animation will be destroyed. 

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 individuals, of which three wore white shirts and three wore black shirts, passed basketballs around. The people were asked to count the number of passes made by the individuals 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.

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 led to further studies on what is known as “unintentional blindness and deafness.” 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, it is best to 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 alone. Be sure to include a visual review, using boards or other graphics, such as check charts, to sum up your interpretation of the facts. 

To Win: Honor Jurors’ Search for Understanding

 

Jurors are told by the Judge not to research anything having to do with the trial, which is fine--except when a juror finds themselves bumped off the panel by a Judge for daring to look up a legal term in the dictionary. Which has happened, probably more than once.

What is wrong with this picture? Why should a juror be penalized for something that is essentially the lawyers' failing – for whatever reason – to do their job in regards to the jurors? Perhaps the lawyers indeed defined their terms adequately in this case, and the juror was being compulsive, but in truth, I have found repeatedly that lawyers forget how much of their communication is legalese, and how many words have a different meaning in ordinary conversation.

Take negligence, for example. To many laypersons, being negligent has an aspect of deliberateness about it. You know you should put your seat belt on, but if you don’t, you’re negligent. So if the surgeon didn’t mean to leave the sponge in the person, it’s probably not negligence. Another example: Lawyers refer to memorializing things. To a layperson, that often means some kind of memorial was created, like a statue or special day. To opine is frequently confused with “to pine” as in “lament.” I could go on . . .

Bottom line: define your terms in words a fifteen-year-old can easily understand and use in a sentence. Believe me, a fifteen-year-old is plenty smart enough, they just don’t have the world and life experience you do. Just like the jurors. Not only will the jurors thank you for using terms defined according to common parlance, they’re more likely to favor your interpretation of the case. After all, it’s the case they understood.

Will Juror Empathy Help or Hurt Your Case?

 

Delving into the group affiliation tendencies and reading habits of your jurors can give you valuable clues to whether or not a juror will be empathic, meaning able or willing to help others in need.

We’ve usually taken this to mean that the nature of the groups people join, and the material they read, are good indicators of how jurors will assess facts. Persons joining a law-and-order type group are more likely to be defense-oriented, persons volunteering at a handicapped facility more likely to be swayed by the plaintiff, and certainly, that still holds true.

However, studies show that the mere fact of belonging to groups of whatever ilk is more likely to be connected to concern for others. Persons who are socially isolated tend to be less generous towards others.

The same appears to be true of reading. Just the fact of reading seems to be connected to one’s empathy. Persons who read little may be less empathic, and, more specifically, that persons who read less fiction report themselves to be less empathic.

As always, the types of jurors you want to include/exclude depend on your case. The more you know about what goes into decision-making, for example, empathy or the lack thereof, the more likely you are to choose appropriate jurors. 

The Power Sit

 

Now that we are back in the courtroom as opposed to our above-the-waist-only position on Zoom, our witnesses/experts’ body language is once again relevant.

In working with witnesses, I developed the “Power Sit” – my shorthand for “Please sit up straight, your back against the back of the chair, with your head level, arms on the arms of the chair,” because experience showed me that witnesses who sit this way, demonstrating good posture, are deemed more credible by jurors.

How does this work?

         - The “Power Sit” bolsters your witnesses’ self-confidence and self-esteem, a consequence of self-respect. Your witnesses are more likely to give credible testimony because they feel better about themselves.

         - Your witnesses are more likely to be perceived by jurors as credible and persuasive, because in our society, those who maintain good posture are considered worthy of respect.

It then stands to reason, that with just a little attention to your own posture, whether sitting at counsel table, standing at the podium or in the well, you can be an even more powerful and convincing litigator. Every little bit helps when it comes to winning your case.

How to Expose Witness Lies Effectively

 

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 conclusion that a witness is lying on their own. People are persuaded by their own reasoning far more than by your proffered statements. Use words such as “incorrect” “inaccurate” “not forthcoming” to describe a witness’s testimony as opposed to “lying” or “untruthful.” Let the jurors attach the word “lie” to the testimony – as they will, if your presentation of the witness’s falsehood is effective.

One of the most effective ways to help the jurors get there, is to use the tried-and-true  “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 “And he lied!!” ever could.

Tell Your Story with Timelines

 

Now that we are coming out of the pandemic and going back into the courtroom, it’s wise to start considering how best to persuade jurors.

An obvious point: 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. 

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, often favored by attorneys, jurors can be too easily confused.

A horizontal timeline also allows you to show events above and below the line representing 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 “flags” above the date line, and show the inconsistencies in opposing counsel’s case in the flags below the date line. For example, as defense, you can contrast plaintiff’s stated behavior at points in time on the above the line flags, with the contradictory medical reports on the below the line flags. 

Timelines of any kind should be used creatively, not just as markers in time, but as ways to tell your story more persuasively.