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 plaintiff, and certainly that still holds true.

However, what researchers at the University of Iowa have found, is 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. A line of research, conducted at York University in Toronto, has shown that 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 depends 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.

Motivate Jurors Positively, Not Just Negatively

It used to be thought that by activating dire consequences in jurors’ minds, jurors would rush to fix or avoid consequences. This has held true whether one is plaintiff justifying huge damages, or defense arguing “Don’t hold us responsible for the other guy’s doing.” And, certainly, threats to life, limb or pocketbook attract our attention.

Television ads and commercials point constantly to just how prevalent such thinking is, and marketing research has conducted study after study that justifies the “Get ‘em scared and they’ll come running” position.

However, more recent studies (O'Keefe & Jensen, in press) show that “gain-framed” appeals, or appeals that encourage people to positive benefits, have a slight persuasive edge over “loss-framed” appeals. O’Keefe and Jensen suggest that it might be because we don’t like being bullied or threatened into behavior.

When it comes to trial practice, use both. Show jurors the dire consequences, yes, but also give them a positive theme with which to uplift. Help jurors see how their decision will accomplish a higher good, something that benefits the larger population, or their community, or improve a system. Something that motivates jurors to feel good about their decision, not just terrified into it.

The Power Sit – Science Matches Experience

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 sat this way, demonstrating good posture, were deemed more credible by jurors.

Now, a study reported recently by The Economist (Jan 13, 2011) reveals that good posture has even greater impact. The psychologists who conducted the study concluded that “Those who walk around with their heads held high not only get the respect of others, they seem also to respect themselves.”

The significance of this for trial work is two-fold:
- 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 those who maintain good posture are considered worthy of respect.

When you apply the same information to your own behavior, with just a little attention to your posture, both when sitting at counsel table and when standing at the podium or in the well, you can be a more powerful and convincing litigator.

And you’ll feel that much better about yourself, to boot.

Harness Jurors’ Wandering Minds: New Science

New research from Harvard University psychologists (Matthew A. Killingsworth & Daniel T. Gilbert) shows that people spend 46.9% of their waking hours “wandering”--thinking about what isn’t going on around them, what happened in the past, what might happen in the future or never at all. Which wouldn’t be such a big deal, except that, as the scientists put it: “A wandering mind is an unhappy mind.” People aren’t happy about what they’re thinking about during their “wandering” times.

How is this relevant to your trial practice? Well, if you aren’t keeping your jurors’ minds engaged, those minds are wandering. The likelihood of their attributing the unhappiness their wandering conjures up to your less-than-compelling presentation rather than their own meanderings, is high. Unhappy people don’t tend to favor those who make them unhappy! There goes your successful case...

All the more reason to do your level best to make your courtroom time count. Get to the point, be succinct, develop hard-hitting bullets and emotional catch-phrases. Use visuals of all kinds – models, boards, animations, power-point (the complex type, not just words on a slide) – and anything else your graphics support staff can dream up. Use focus groups to help you nail what matters to jurors and hone in on that.

The more you keep the jurors’ minds on your track, the less they are inclined to wander, the greater your chances of success.

The Great Recession and Your Jury

A recent Pew Center Research Publication (September 24, 2010) brought to light how the Great Recession has had significantly different impact on two roughly equal halves of the American population. 55% experienced considerable hardship, including unemployment, missed mortgages or rent payments, and other such financial downturns. 45% however rode out the recession with much less difficulty, experiencing only minor hardship. This is potentially very useful information for jury selection.

Among the key findings (bearing in mind these are generalities, not absolutes):
- about seven-in-ten retirees and other older adults largely held their own during the recession
- however, seven-in-ten millennials (20-somethings) experienced the reverse, lots of hardship
- suburban and rural dwellers had a less rough go of it than city dwellers
- a college degree matters: about six-in-ten college graduates count themselves among the 45% who experienced fewer difficulties during the recession, compared to only 38% of those whose educational attainment was a high school diploma or less.

Be aware of these findings as you go about selecting your jurors. For example, a 20-something with a college degree who experienced many financial difficulties may be more sour and ungenerous than most of your college-educated individuals who typically have not faced as many hardships. A non-college educated retiree who held his or her own with relative ease may be financially cautious (as is often true for older jurors), but not dour or completely closed off to large awards.

Handling the Angry Witness

You’re gearing up for trial, you hardly have the time or patience to deal with an angry witness. Yet there you are, in the unenviable position of having to prepare a witness who is angry for any number of reasons:

- The witness is a client, angry that this matter couldn’t be settled or that it even is in litigation at all.
- The witness is furious at being “required” to testify.
- The witness has healed or substantially recovered from the incidents at issue and resents having to deal with “it” all over again.

Whatever the witness’s reason, he or she is mad! And only too happy to tell you all about just how aggravated and upset they are. You try to get down to the business of prep with “OK, but we’ve got to focus on preparing you for your testimony,” which is labored, halting and difficult at best.

There is a more effective way. People in highly charged emotional states need FIRST to have their emotions thoroughly acknowledged, in order to clear their minds and hearts sufficiently to think rationally.

Start by reflecting your witness’s emotions: “It is frustrating to have to go through this again.” Let them respond with another emotional salvo, and follow that with something like “This has been really hard on you.” By now, the witness will have calmed down some, because you’re not resisting their emotion, you’re acknowledging it. Notice how the acknowledgement is done in third person, non-inflammatory terms. Once you sense that the witness is less angry, you’re ready to open the prep session with the use of the word “and.” “And that’s why we’re here today—to prepare you so the jurors can understand your perspective.”

More than anything, emotionally wrought people want just one thing – to be genuinely heard.

Not A Passive Jury Anymore

Sitting sedately in the jury box, jurors appear to be a captive, passive audience, receptive to the lawyers’ and witnesses’ every utterance. Would it were so. Jurors are hardly passive these days. They are informed and have opinion on a broad range of matters, even if mostly at a superficial “news caption” level.

After all, most jurors have access to and use--some obsessively--every social networking platform available, to speak to each other. They refer to blogs, media outlets, and other venues to converse, compare and discuss everything from the latest sports-figure scandal to the effectiveness of our overseas troops to the political impact of Ms. Palin’s eye-roll. It is a mistake to believe this is a habit exercised only by the young. Every age group now twitters, facebooks and blogs, with the possible exception of the very elderly. Notice, I say “possible.”

Juror patience with the often excruciating minutiae of evidence is poor. They get their information and communicate in micro-bites. The one complaint I hear over and over in jury debriefings is “Get to the point!” Jurors are willing to pay attention to and attempt to understand the evidence that supports your point – once you get there. Too often, a lawyer will lay out such a meticulous foundation that by the time the lawyer gets to the reason for all that effort, the jurors don’t care. Certainly, foundation must be laid, but whenever possible, start with an “umbrella sentence” that clues the jurors in to your point, so they are oriented, and therefore patient, with what follows.