Create a Trustworthy First Impression

 

First impressions are tremendously powerful. It takes 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.

Credibility is founded on trustworthiness. And those we trust display 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.

Dr. Noelle Nelson recently consulted on:

Congratulations to Gerard T. Carmody and Lindsay Combs of Carmody MacDonald P.C. (St. Louis) for their $2,300,000 unanimous Jury Verdict in City of Brentwood, Missouri v. TMD Property I, LLC, an eminent domain case involving the taking of 6+ acres of vacant undeveloped property in highly sought-after Brentwood, Missouri.  The City’s original offer was $170,000 which increased at trial to approximately $280,000.  The property owner, represented by Carmody MacDonald, testified to a range of value between $2,150,000 and $2,300,000.  The jury unanimously awarded $2,300,000.  Several jurors were moved to tears during the reading of the verdict.  In addition to the $2.3 million verdict, TMD Property I, LLC is also due over $230,000 in interest.

 

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. 

Be Judicious With Your Words

The words you use in framing your question will encourage witnesses to think and respond differently. This can be critical to how your case unfolds. 

For example, in a study in which a group of people were asked to estimate a basketball player's height, when asked "How tall is he?" subjects answered on average, “79 inches.” When asked, "How short is he?" of the same player, subjects answered on average, “69 inches.” That’s a difference of a full ten inches - 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.

With just a bit of thought, it is surprisingly easy to make deliberate word choices that better focus witness responses -  and therefore juror perception -  to your advantage.

Making Your Employees Happy with Dr. Noelle Nelson - Transform Your Workplace Podcast

 

Companies that thrive no matter what are companies who truly appreciate their employees Successful companies create a culture where employee feedback is encouraged, rewarded, implemented, and acknowledged. In today’s business world, individual preference matters, so leaders should pay more attention to what their employees want.

Don't Let Your Jurors Miss the Gorilla in the Room

 

People were asked, in a classic experiment, to watch a short video in which six individuals, of which three wore white shirts and three wore black shirts, passed basketballs around. The people were asked to count the number of passes made by the individuals in white shirts. At some point, a gorilla strolled into the middle of the action, faced the camera and thumped its chest, and then left, having spent nine seconds on screen.

Intuitively, we all think we’d see the gorilla. How could something so obvious go completely unnoticed? But the truth of the matter is that half of the people who watched the video and counted the passes missed the gorilla! It was as though the gorilla was invisible.

This research led to further studies on what is known as “unintentional blindness and deafness.” When we’re focused on one thing, we easily miss other, potentially very important, things.

This is why, when it comes to winning in front of a jury, it is best to present your most important evidence/testimony both visually and auditorily. You never know which member of the jury is focused on something that renders them unintentionally deaf or blind to your critical point.

It’s also why repetition is important in a trial, and why review at time of close, matters. Don’t rely on spoken review of testimony alone. Be sure to include a visual review, using boards or other graphics, such as check charts, to sum up your interpretation of the facts. 

To Win: Honor Jurors’ Search for Understanding

 

Jurors are told by the Judge not to research anything having to do with the trial, which is fine--except when a juror finds themselves bumped off the panel by a Judge for daring to look up a legal term in the dictionary. Which has happened, probably more than once.

What is wrong with this picture? Why should a juror be penalized for something that is essentially the lawyers' failing – for whatever reason – to do their job in regards to the jurors? Perhaps the lawyers indeed defined their terms adequately in this case, and the juror was being compulsive, but in truth, I have found repeatedly that lawyers forget how much of their communication is legalese, and how many words have a different meaning in ordinary conversation.

Take negligence, for example. To many laypersons, being negligent has an aspect of deliberateness about it. You know you should put your seat belt on, but if you don’t, you’re negligent. So if the surgeon didn’t mean to leave the sponge in the person, it’s probably not negligence. Another example: Lawyers refer to memorializing things. To a layperson, that often means some kind of memorial was created, like a statue or special day. To opine is frequently confused with “to pine” as in “lament.” I could go on . . .

Bottom line: define your terms in words a fifteen-year-old can easily understand and use in a sentence. Believe me, a fifteen-year-old is plenty smart enough, they just don’t have the world and life experience you do. Just like the jurors. Not only will the jurors thank you for using terms defined according to common parlance, they’re more likely to favor your interpretation of the case. After all, it’s the case they understood.

Be Good to Your Jurors: Connect the Dots

 

A disturbing comment I hear repeatedly in jury debriefings and focus groups is that the attorneys do not connect their points or evidence to the specifics of the complaint.

Furthermore, attorneys rarely fully explain the jury instructions to the jury, and worse – fail to tie in those instructions to the attorney’s interpretation of the case.

This leaves jurors in the lurch. They start deliberations with no anchor, nothing to help ground them. They hardly know how to start. They are confused, perturbed, and unable to think in a reasonable manner about the case.

Be good to your jurors. Always make the connection for them, in obvious, preferably visual ways, between the evidence and testimony, and the complaint/cross-complaint. Do the same with the jury instructions.

Experience shows time and again, that the attorney who presents his or her case the most clearly, all else being roughly equal, is the most likely to succeed.