Not “The Other Side Of The Story,” The Other Story

It doesn’t matter which side you represent, you must tell a story. For plaintiff, this is obvious: there’s a wrong to be righted, and it always has a story. For defense, 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 plaintiff’s hands. Plaintiff still defines the terms of the game, the boundaries of play. It’s about “the other story” where 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 plaintiff’s claims by showing how they fit as legitimate, “good” pieces within defense’s story.  So, for example, with a med mal case, defense could include as part of its story, how Doctor’s procedure/process is highly regarded - the best possible and safest course given the patient’s condition. That Doctor trusts, relies on, and has seen excellent results from the procedure/process. That Doctor used various diagnostics to validate Doctor’s choice. That Doctor’s was employed a well-thought out decision-making process (“decision tree”).  And of course, to include in the story as well, how plaintiff neglected Doctor’s instructions, and the alternate causes for 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.

Can’t Live With Them, Can’t Live Without Them: Jurors

Trials would be so much easier if you didn’t have to deal with jurors. Jurors wander off mentally during your most crucial testimony, they’re distracted by a lawyer’s mannerisms, they’re irritated by an expert’s vocal tone, they disapprove of a witness’ 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, 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, use a facilitator to ask probing questions of each and every juror, to analyze how each juror arrives at their various conclusions, and to observe how group dynamics affect those conclusions. In addition, a facilitator can keep track of each juror’s opinion, which in turn is highly useful for jury selection.

Truly, in this as in many aspects of litigation, knowledge is power.

The Jury and GenXers

GenXers are getting older. They are the generation bumping up against the Boomers who are slowly but surely on their way out. Which means you are seeing more of them in the jury box – individuals born between roughly 1961 and 1981, who are now in their late 30’s to mid 50’s. They are no longer entry-level hires, they’ve moved up into managerial or supervisor ranks, or commonly, headed off into entrepreneurial ventures of all types and sizes.

Why does this matter to you? 

GenXers are still among the more skeptical, if not downright cynical, generation. Thus, when it comes to liability, GenXer skepticism tends to favor defense because GenXers aren’t particularly emotionally swayed. They require more data, more evidence and the science behind it in order to find liability.

Liability is a major obstacle for plaintiff’s attorney when arguing in front of GenXers, so if your jury box is loaded with GenXers, be sure to back up your every argument with as much documented evidence as possible.

The downside for defense is, once GenXers are convinced of liability--especially GenXers in their late 30s and 40s--they will award higher damages than any other generational group. GenXers believe that people should be held accountable for their own actions. Awarding substantial damages is a way of holding people accountable.

The solution is the same as for plaintiff--but in the opposite direction. As defense, do everything you can to back up your arguments countering liability with documented, “hard” evidence, so as not to be hit with a big award.