The Changing Face of Jury Pools

The Superior Courts in Riverside and Murrieta have childcare available for jurors. They accept children three years and older, who are potty trained. A quick internet search of California Superior Courts shows three other locations offering pretty much the same service: Redwood City, Compton & Fresno.

Although there are too few Courts offering childcare for this to impact all jury pools, it is a trend which could very well develop quickly. Courts need more willing jurors, and this is an intelligent approach to the problem. After all, significant segments of the population are regularly excused from trials due to childcare obligations. We’re not just talking about young Moms, but also fathers who are taking over childcare for working Moms, single and/or gay Dads, and the traditional grandmothers and aunts who provide such services for family.

Jurors with young children have a different order of concerns, and often a different lifestyle (sleep deprived, exist in a child-centric universe). Depending on your case, introducing these jurors into the mix means looking at your case also through these jurors’ eyes, something you may not have had to do heretofore.

How to Translate the Expert’s Opinions into Expert Testimony

An expert I recently worked with was brilliant, no doubt. His credentials were superb, his authority on the matter in question, well, unquestioned. But his ability to communicate his expertise in a way any lay person (juror) could understand was awful. His deposition was larded with phrases such as: “The administration let other departments in the facility seize the initiative with a consequent fragmentation of the support for educational technologies offered to staff.”

Now to say to such an expert “speak in plain English” would seem a common sense approach to preparing him for Court testimony. The problem is, the expert thinks he is speaking in plain English, and that any idiot should easily be able to understand him.

Arguing the point with the expert is a waste of time. Instead, help your expert by asking a series of questions derived from his or her statement, such as: “What did the support for educational technologies consist of?” Hopefully, the answer will be something like “Classes or seminars teaching the technologies” and if it hasn’t been explained already, then ask something simple like “What are the educational technologies you refer to?” Disregard the expert’s condescending glare, since his “Orthopedic charting software 101” is information the jurors can relate to far more easily than “educational technologies.” It’s also something you can put up visually on a chart, with icons that personalize and make real “Orthopedic charting software.”

As tedious as it may feel, go through your expert’s key points in this manner as you prepare him or her for testimony. You’ll now have a much more effective direct, and have given your expert tools for being convincing on cross, which the expert otherwise would sorely lack.

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.

Stop Whining! Win Juror Votes with Witness “Can Do” Attitude (Part I, Plaintiff)

Your key witness is usually your client, or your client’s representative. If plaintiff, the witness is likely to complain, a litany of “He/she/they done me wrong.” Perfectly understandable, why else would your client be there in the first place! However, to juror ears, an unending stream of complaints sounds like whining, and jurors don’t like whiners.

What they like are people who, despite their misfortunes, are valiant, are giving it the best shot they can. This doesn’t mean your plaintiff client stiff-upper-lips it to where through gritted teeth/wired jaw they maintain “All is well,” but rather that you make sure, during direct, that you expose the ways in which your client is doing the very best that they can to survive/heal/improve things despite horrendous odds.

Now you have a potential winner in juror eyes, not a loser-whiner.

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.

How to Help Jurors Discredit the Lay Witness in Cross

We all cooperate more willingly with decisions we’ve had a hand in making. Jurors in trial are no different. Ask your questions in cross-examination in a way that allows the jurors to arrive at the unmistakable, inescapable, conclusion you want them to, rather than force the conclusion down their throats or risking a sympathetic answer from defense’s witness.

For example: The lawyer is cross-examining a lay witness at the scene of a bus-pedestrian accident. The lawyer represents the pedestrian.

Question: Ms. Smith, did you see the bus as it came towards the intersection of First and Main shortly before the accident?
Answer: Yes, I did.
Question: Could you tell us what the color of the light was for the bus as it came down First?
Answer: It was green, a green light.
Question: Really? Isn’t it true that when you spoke to the police officer shortly after the accident you said the light was red?
Answer: Oh, well, I’m sorry, I’m a little nervous. I’m sure the police officer report is right.

Well, at this point, the jurors may very well believe the witness, since she’s being humble and apologetic and who isn’t nervous in court? The lawyer meanwhile has lost the opportunity to show the jurors that the case isn’t as cut and dried as defense would have them believe.

A more effective way to approach this might be:
Question: Could you tell us what the color the light was for the bus as it came down First?
Answer: It was green, a green light.
Question: Ms. Smith, did you talk with a police officer right there at the scene, just after the accident?
Answer: Yes, I did.
Question: And did that police officer ask you what color the light was for the bus as it came down First?
Answer: Yes, I think he did.

Rather than pounce on the witness at this point and give her the opportunity to sympathetically correct herself, the lawyer could produce the police report and show (visuals work!) the portion where Ms. Smith unequivocally said “The light was red,” and simply end his cross on that note.

The jurors can now come to their own conclusion that Ms. Smith is, for whatever reason, being less than truthful, and are now much more likely to accept the police report as stated, which was exactly what the lawyer wanted them to do.