How Texting and Twitter Impact Your Openings

You may never have tweeted in your life, nor do you ever want to, or you may tweet your every move. You may think texting was invented purely to bless your life with constant communication, or curse it. Either way, love it or hate it, the different ways in which people are communicating impact the effectiveness of your trial work, in particular, how you express yourself in your opening statements.

Opening statements are the roadmap, that which helps the jurors make sense of the evidence as it unfolds, this you know. However, how you create and present that roadmap needs to take into account how today’s jurors communicate, not how those of yesteryear did.

What that means is:
- Use short sentences. Express just one thought per sentence. Texting, twitter, even IMing all rely on short bursts of information. These are easier for jurors to absorb than the long often convoluted sentences typical of lawyer briefs.
- Get to the point. People who text and tweet find ways to say what they have to say in immediate, no frills fashion. Convince jurors of your case by speaking a “language” they understand.
- Title your points. A short burst of information is followed by another, related, short burst, in most texting and Twitter. When you give a title to your point (or make it a bullet-point), you can then go on to elaborate, because you have a title you can refer to repeatedly to help jurors stay on track.

Wall Street Meltdown Impacting How Jurors View Business Clients

Listen to Dr. Noelle Nelson on The Legal Broadcast Network.

Topic: Wall Street Meltdown Impacting How Jurors View Attorneys & Business Clients

To hear the 10-minute interview, go to:

http://thelegalbroadcastnetwork.squarespace.com/the-lbn-blog/2009/6/25/wall-street-meltdown-impacting-how-jurors-view-attorneys-bus.html

Recession Revelations & Your Jurors

The continuing recession and revelations it brings about corporate and other wrong-doing – be it excesses, or cavalier squandering of the ordinary citizen’s financial well-being – have significantly altered juror attitudes. Jurors are no longer taking the position of “What the heck, everybody does it,” rather they are holding lawyers and all parties in the action to a higher standard. For example, taking advantage of others by virtue of contractual technicalities and loopholes is less viewed as a flaky but ordinary way of operating in the world, and more as an unacceptable moral failing. Issues of abandonment and betrayal are rarely excused. Turning one’s back on others and leaving them in a helpless or difficult situation, is virtually always unacceptable.

Jurors are favoring lawyers who express sincerity and genuine belief in their client’s cause, are well prepared, and respectful towards the legal process and all involved. Jurors are less convinced by lawyers who focus on the “letter of the law” and more persuaded by those who incorporate the “spirit of the law” into their arguments. Jurors are more attuned to anything that smacks of a lawyer’s attempt to pull the wool over their eyes, and likely to quickly discredit that lawyer and his or her arguments.

Jurors appear to be more favorable towards the lawyer who admits to problem areas of a case, and then proceeds to give common-sense, believable reasons for those actions. Jurors do not appear to be looking for perfection, or favoring only those “without sin,” but rather for honesty and other “straight-shooter” type qualities, which are quintessential American ideals - sorely lacking these past few years in many a juror’s mind.

The Nuisance of Jurors

Trials would be so much easier if you didn’t have to deal with jurors. Jurors wander off mentally during your most critical testimony, they’re distracted by an itch or a lawyer’s mannerisms, they’re irritated by an expert’s vocal tone, they disapprove of a witness’s attitude. Jurors misunderstand the law, making it up as they go along. Jurors impose their own version of what’s right or wrong, what’s negligence, what should be the standard - be it of care, warning, safety or other. Jurors deliberate as a group, which introduces the whole notion of group dynamics, complicating the matter further. Need I go on?

But jurors must be dealt with, and more importantly, we must deal with how they come to the decisions they make. For the better you can determine or discern what impacts those decisions, the more likely you are to succeed at trial.

This is where intense, targeted use of the pre-trial focus group can be especially valuable. Instead of letting focus group “jurors” elect a foreperson and talk over each other to arrive at a consensual decision, have a facilitator ask probing questions of each and every juror, to analyze how each juror arrives at their various conclusions, as well as observe how group dynamics are affecting those conclusions.

Knowledge is power.

Facebook & Your Client: Win, Lose or Draw?

A New York Times article (March 10, 2009) described the recent experience of an NYPD officer who was cross-examined over material on his Facebook page. While the officer's posted comment that the movie "Training Day" was a good lesson in police procedure was a joke, it did not play out that way in front of the jury. The defense attorney successfully used the officer’s public postings to paint a picture of an overly aggressive officer willing to bend the rules.

E-discovery does not end with a perusal of emails! E-discovery can readily extend to any postings on the Internet. Most lawyers will attempt to discover what, if any, Internet presence opponent’s client or key witnesses have. Where they are sometimes remiss, is in discovering their own client’s presence. Whether you represent plaintiff or defendant, it is wise to check with your client whether he or she has a Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Orkut/Hi5/Friendster/LinkedIn/StumbleUpon/etc. presence, and whether that presence conforms with how your client wishes to be perceived in Court. If not, deleting the page isn’t an answer: some Courts have allowed the retrieval of deleted pages. You need to know how your client is holding him/herself out on the Internet in order to defuse it, ignore it, or applaud it. All three are valid options.

The Lie, Continued...

As much as jurors resent a witness who lies, you must have inconvertible evidence that someone is out and out lying in order to even suggest it.

Even then, it’s best to let the jurors come to the “Lie” conclusion on their own. As Bob Pave, of Pave & Bogaards puts it: “I never say that somebody is lying. I say that it's not exactly "correct," not exactly "truthful," not exactly "forthcoming" and stuff like that. I lead them right up to the edge and let them attach the word "lie" to the plaintiff, all by themselves. [e.g., Hell, it's a downright lie.]”

An effective way to help the jurors get there, is to use a “Chart of Inconsistencies.” As defense, for example, you could bullet on a chart what the plaintiff told Dr. A, the different story he told Dr. B, and the yet more different tale he told at deposition. Or as plaintiff, you could bullet on a chart what defendant told the police, what was discovered in emails, what she swore to in interrogatories. Such a chart alone, since it references facts, has more impact on today’s jurors than your forceful expostulation “And he lied!!” ever could.

Jurors and The Lie

The first mark of a person worthy of juror respect is honesty, someone who doesn’t lie, cheat or steal. Persons – or entities – can be guilty of all manner of wrong-doing, but as long as they don’t lie about it or try to cover it up (cheating & stealing the truth), jurors will be more forgiving.

Why is this important? Because jurors, as impartial and reasoned as we would like them to be – aren’t. Jurors are people first, jurors second, and people all over the world are motivated by their emotions. Emotion literally means “to move.”

So, whether you are defense or plaintiff, if you can show how the other side’s client/witnesses lied, cheated or stole, you are more likely to rouse the jurors to righteous indignation or downright anger.

With that, you can help move the jurors over to your interpretation of the facts. And that’s what winning your case is all about.