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* has recently 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.

-------

* Flores, D.M. (2011). Methods of expanded voir dire and written questionnaires: Experimental results on juror self-disclosure and implications for trial practice. Court Call, Summer, 2011, pp. 1-6.

Persuasion 101: Seeing is Believing

Recently, a Brigham City orthopedic surgeon (Dr. Dewey MacKay) claimed that the jury mistakenly convicted him of illegally prescribing medication  because they neither understood the facts of the case, nor how chronic pain is managed.

Jurors interviewed by the Salt Lake Tribune, however, said Dr. Mackay’s comments were misguided. One juror summed up the jury’s deliberation process succinctly: “We took every single count one by one and discussed each count in detail. We used the chalkboard, we used chart paper so everything was visual for everyone.”

(The Salt Lake Tribune, Dec 22 2011)

“So everything was visual for everyone.” That’s the key. That’s how you must be able to present your case if you are to prevail: visually. Regardless of the nature of your case: personal injury, med mal, construction defect, eminent domain, contractual dispute, whatever, you must be able to find ways to translate testimony and facts into visual elements.

That means much more than flashing deposition or other text on the screen. Visual rendition of testimony means coming up with graphics, diagrams, and bottom line charts. It’s answering today’s jurors’ constant need to “see it” before they believe it.

When you, the lawyer, provide the jury with compelling visuals to clarify and emphasize your points, you pave the way for the deliberations to favor your interpretation of the facts. This is far better than relying on the jurors’ ability to render your points visually, for they may or may not do so accurately.

Create a Trustworthy First Impression

Personal experience tells us how powerful first impressions are. However, new research from the University of California, Berkeley (Nov, 2011) reinforces our innate understanding of first impressions. The study suggests it can take just 20 seconds to detect whether a stranger is genetically inclined to being trustworthy, kind or compassionate. That’s 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.

What was it about the strangers that led the study subjects to figure out whether or not the stranger was trustworthy? Very simply, the “trusted” strangers displayed 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.

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.

Win the Battle of the Experts

Considerable research has been devoted to figuring out how jurors decide among competing experts, which one to believe.

Not surprisingly, jurors are suspicious of expert motives, and assume that each expert will be biased toward the side that hired the expert.

However, setting that aside, jurors then pay close attention to the disagreements between the experts, how much of the evidence each expert actually speaks to, and how what the expert says fits with the overall presentation of testimony and evidence.

All this is well and good, and reminds us of how important it is for experts to consider their opinions within the context of the entire case.

But the true demarcation, that which often makes one expert the “truth-speaker” for the jurors as opposed to another of the experts, is the plain-spokenness of an expert. Jurors appreciate straight-forward opinions and testimony.  Jurors are suspect of an expert who can only render his or her opinions in jargon or otherwise technical language that impedes juror comprehension.

Lawyers, so thoroughly steeped in the case that they hardly recognize obscure language as such (because they’ve been using it in depos, in motions, etc. for the life of the case)  don’t facilitate the process for jurors because the lawyer is just as likely to ask questions using technical terms as the expert is to respond in like manner.

Get the jurors on your side by prepping your expert to speak in juror-friendly terms.

Refresh your awareness of what jurors will and won’t understand by presenting your expert’s opinions to a focus group. Or to your 15 year old nephew. Either will let you know in no uncertain terms whether the language your expert uses is credible and convincing.

Words, words, words!

Did you know that the very words you use in framing your question will encourage witnesses to think and respond differently?

For example, in a study in which a group of people were asked to estimate a basketball player's height, the response varied. When asked "How tall is he?" those in a study answered on the average, “79 inches.” When the question posed was, "How short is he?" of the same player, subjects answered on the average, “69 inches” a difference of almost a foot!

Choose words such as "fast" when you want to suggest speed, "far" for distance, "tall" to emphasize height, and "short" to minimize it. "How fast was the car going?" suggests high speed. "At what speed was the car traveling?" suggests a more moderate speed. "How far was the intersection?" implies that the intersection was far away; "How near was the intersection?" implies the opposite.

Choose the word that presupposes your desired answer. "How long did that go on?"
denotes a situation went on a long time. "How soon was it resolved?" indicates the situation did
not go on a long time. "How many people were involved?" implies many people were involved.
"Who else was involved?" implies just a few people were involved.

It is surprisingly easy to make deliberate word choices that better focus witness responses - and therefore juror perception - to your advantage.