Do You Like Me?

 

Likeability shouldn’t matter in the courtroom. A lawyer’s personality should be irrelevant. The facts should be paramount, the only thing jurors attend to, but jurors are persuaded by a combination of factors. Facts are but one of many.

Your likeability matters. Fortunately, this isn’t high school, and your likeability isn’t based on an indecipherable “cool factor.” Likeability is based on traits anyone can easily acquire or express. Among those traits are:

1. Politeness and civility

Jurors appreciate attorneys who are polite and civil with everyone in the courtroom, from the clerk to hostile witness to alternate juror.

2. Appropriate passion

Jurors like attorneys who show zeal for their client’s cause, without stooping to unwarranted bashing of the other side. Arguing inconsistencies, strength of evidence and the like are fine. Pointing out opposing counsel or a witness’s weaknesses is fine. Beating up on opposing counsel or a witness is not.

3. Clarity

Strange as it may seem, the attorney who provides the clearest, most to-the-point roadmap through the trial, the clearest, easiest-to-understand, succinct examination of witnesses, the clearest description of evidence, and the clearest explanation of jury instructions—is the attorney who is most liked, and will, in most cases, carry the day.

Master these three traits, and you’ll soon be the “best-liked” and “most-winning” lawyer in the courthouse.

The Enduring, Maddening CSI Effect

In my ongoing research of what jurors think and how they decide cases, I read umpteen blogs, tweets and more authored by those who have served. Even though the original “CSI” television show and its many offshoots are long past (well, mostly), the “CSI effect” is remarkably enduring. One would do well to pay more attention to it.

Simply put, the “CSI effect” is jurors’ overriding, sometimes obsessive, need to explore for themselves every bit of physical evidence in an attempt to come to a fair and just decision. This is true whether the case at hand is civil or criminal. Contracts are scrutinized, emails pored over, and signatures examined with the same zeal as skid marks and bloodstains.

In one trial, for example, jurors requested photos of a victim’s wounds and examined them minutely. Nothing novel there. However, a mechanic among the jurors categorically pronounced the wounds as from a Torx screwdriver, despite the fact that apparently no such screwdriver had been mentioned during the trial. In the absence of being given any more compelling evidence from defense, the rest of the jurors seized on the “Torx” interpretation, and what had been a stalemated jury rapidly became a unanimous plaintiff’s verdict.

What’s the lesson here? That it’s up to you, the attorney, to look at your evidence every which way and give a forceful, compelling, interpretation to your evidence (preferably with visuals for support) such that it cannot be re-interpreted in some unfavorable way by a jury that examines the evidence with a keener eye than yours. Even when there is no way for you or your experts to say with conviction “Here’s the smoking gun!” offer the jurors the strongest probable interpretation that can be drawn from the evidence. Leaving the interpretation up to the jurors is taking a chance you can ill afford when you want to win.

 

Can Visuals Interfere With Your Argument/Testimony?

 

Our world has become a ‘world-in-pictures’ with virtually everything translated into a visual format, or at the very least, accompanied by an icon or picture of some related sort. Given this reality, litigators have been encouraged to create visuals and graphics to support the presentation of their case, to the maximum allowed by the Court.

All this is well and good, and indeed, has been proven effective in case after case. However, which visuals, and how they are designed to be most persuasive, can be elusive.

Lawyers are often tempted to load up visuals with as much information as possible, understanding that the visual is more compelling than the spoken word. In theory, this is accurate. However, you and your witnesses still need to be heard as well as visually represented. Research shows that too much information on any given graphic can lead to “inattentional deafness.” Simply stated, the more complicated and comprehensive the visual material, the less people were able to respond to what they heard.

This is true for jurors as well. Over-complicate your visuals, and jurors will not be able to absorb what you’re saying. If your case is such that you must present an information-loaded visual, be that in still or video form, be quiet while that information is imparted visually, at least for a few moments, and then speak, preferably with the information-loaded visual out of view. 

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 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.

-------

A Winning Case Dr. Noelle Nelson recently consulted on:

Congratulations to A. Barry Cappello, Leila Noël, Larry Conlan and David Cousineau of Cappello & Noël LLP; Lieff Cabraser LLP; Keller Rohrback LLP and Audet & Partners, for their $230,000,000 successful settlement, reached after seven years of litigation in the class action lawsuit filed by fishers, fish processors and shoreline property residents (members of two classes) against Plains All American Pipeline, after a corroded pipeline spilled an estimated 15,000 barrels of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean in 2015. The spill devastated the fishing industry and polluted coastal properties from Santa Barbara County to Los Angeles County. 

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.