Explain "Why" to Make Your Case Matter to the Jurors

In a courtroom, it isn't necessarily the attorney with the best facts who wins, but the attorney who best explains the relevance of those facts both to the case and to the jurors.

Certainly, you need solid evidence, but here we’re talking about what do you need to get the edge? What, given the usual state of affairs by the time a case gets to court where both sides believe their evidence is strong enough to prevail, can you do to give you the advantage over your opponent?

Explain why. Why does your interpretation of the facts make sense? Why should the jurors care that their verdict favor your client? Why should this matter to the jurors? How does it impact their lives (work, family, children, safety, etc.), preferably in an immediate and direct way?

Explain through your experts, your lay witnesses, and most importantly, your closing argument, and of course your opening to the degree allowed.

We invest in the personal, in that which strikes home. That's why stories have such impact, they touch the personal. So too with explanations - make your case matter, not just to your client, but to the jurors.

A Mind-Boggling Social Experiment Proves the Importance of First Impressions

If you ever wondered just how important the jurors’ first impressions of your client and witnesses are, here’s a mind-boggling social experiment, posted on youtube.

It shows people walking right past well-known and loved family members, not recognizing a single one of them, when the family members were dressed as homeless individuals, sitting as homeless often do, on the sidewalk by a building.

Now, if dress and body posture can fool a daughter into not recognizing her mother, parents into not recognizing their own children, imagine how critical the attire and body language of your client and witnesses are. The jurors can easily be misled as to the credibility and sincerity of your witnesses, strangers as they all are, at the beginning of trial.

A neurosurgeon, for example, who wore a black shirt under his expensive dark suit, was labeled “Mafia Doc” by the jurors, when nothing could have been farther from the truth. A handsome thirty year old CPA, who persisted in running his hand through his stylish somewhat long locks, was dubbed “Player” by the jurors, and his testimony deemed suspect: “Nobody who looks like that could ever be serious.”

First impressions matter. From the moment your client/witness steps into the courtroom, all juror eyes are upon him or her. And jurors judge everything they see according to stereotyped definitions which unfortunately hold great power. Even as the trial unfolds, failure to attend to your witnesses’ self-presentation can mar otherwise competent testimony.

Don’t Undermine The Value of Your Focus Group

A focus group has many benefits, among the primary the opinions the “jurors” offer on the case: strengths, weaknesses, validity of themes, etc.  However, focus group jurors can only provide opinions if they are asked the right questions. Too often, lawyers ask focus group jurors to deliberate and discuss just the verdict questions. This is a woefully inadequate use of the focus group.

Don’t rely solely on verdict questions to elicit opinion, develop a list of questions that target your areas of concern. Every single one! It is far better to develop too many targeted questions and have whoever is facilitating the juror discussion eliminate them as necessary, than to develop too few questions and miss the opportunity of hearing valuable juror opinions.

If the target questions are well designed, the juror discussion will reveal the weaknesses in the lawyer's presentation of the case. Too often, lawyers will interrupt juror deliberation to respond to juror criticisms with a vigorous “Yeah, but..." defense of their position. This response undermines the entire value of the focus group. Why should an attorney bother asking for “juror" opinions if the end result is to tell focus group members that the lawyer is right and they are wrong?

You will gain the most by embracing criticism, looking for its benefit, and not trying to defend against it. Lawyers who dismiss the focus group's criticisms and opinions and fail to incorporate them in their trial strategy might as well not conduct a focus group at all. Lawyers who do not mind losing the focus group in order to win the trial are the lawyers who will profit most from the process.