Yearly Archives: 2017

Are You Asking the Right Questions?

Trials are centered around questions and answers. Attorneys have expectations based on their experience questioning witnesses—they ask precise questions and expect honest answers. They can anticipate the witness’ responses and prepare follow-up questions. And they can call attention to a witness’ biases if the witness is being evasive or misleading. But how does all of that experience translate when questioning jurors? Do precisely worded questions necessarily evoke clear and honest answers?

The expectation that the back-and-forth with jurors operates in the same manner as the questioning of witnesses can lead a trial attorney astray during voir dire. Jurors arrive in court with no prior knowledge of the case they will be discussing and therefore, must provide responses with very little time to consider their beliefs and opinions. Because most of our immediate thought processes are inferential and unconscious, jurors then tend to rely on heuristics that produce biases they are not aware of. So when a juror talks at length about how a member of her family has been harmed by, for example, crystal meth, and then assures the Court that she can be fair to the person accused of possessing crystal meth, she’s telling the truth, in her mind. But from the outside, it is clear that her experiences will affect her decision-making in ways that she doesn’t recognize.

This lack of awareness of how and why we think what we do leads to two practical problems: (1) Jurors who don’t recognize their own biases, like the juror in the crystal meth case above, force the trial team to use up their limited preemptories instead of relying on a cause strike; and (2) It creates confusion as to which responses you can trust and which you should be wary of.

So how can you increase jurors’ self-awareness and therefore, elicit more accurate responses?

-Approach sensitive topics indirectly. Don’t assume that straight questions lead to straight answers. Asking questions in a less direct and more unexpected way causes jurors to think through the issue from a different angle and can lead to more thoughtful—and truthful—responses.

-Promote discussion rather than trying to force “yes” and “no” responses. Engaging in a discussion will help jurors move from automatic to intentional processing.

Recognizing that jurors, like most people, are unaware of many of the attitudes, beliefs, and biases that drive their decision-making allows you to understand why they have difficulty responding to questions with clear, coherent and reliable information. This recognition also provides you with the opportunity to develop a unique approach to voir dire that encourages discussion and reflection. Additionally, it underscores the importance of researching the language that best encourages honest, self-aware responses from jurors regarding the sensitive topics specific to your case. Because most jurors want to tell the truth—we just have to create an environment that makes it easy for them to do so.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

What if There is No Good Answer?

Most of us have been in the dreaded situation where we are facing an allegation or piece of evidence in court that we simply have no good answer for. But what do you do in that situation? We have seen attorneys try to use vague language to evade or gloss over the issue. Or use various analogies or examples to keep from confronting problematic issues directly. Or simply ignore the issue altogether. But are those strategies effective? Does such redirection work with jurors?

In our experience, the answer to those questions is a resounding no. Staying silent on an issue is perceived as an omission—but with a “gotcha” effect. Being vague usually comes across as that—as evasiveness—which unfortunately creates a credibility problem for the attorney throughout the case. And making incongruent analogies has an air of deceptiveness that jurors tend to pick up on rather quickly and react to fairly strongly.

So what is the answer? You must face the issue head-on. Jurors know it exists. You know it exists. So even when you don’t have a good argument on a particular topic, addressing it directly strengthens your stance on other points. But how do you talk about something when there’s nothing good to say? Every set of case facts is different and different clients are comfortable with different things, but some options are sketched out below:

-Concede the point. Admit that X should not have occurred/been said. If there is context that makes it more understandable, provide it, but continue to be clear that it should not have happened. Conceding a point that is indisputable only serves to increase your credibility.

-Provide the true explanation—even if it’s not great. We’ve seen many clients want to shy away from the real reason a memo was written or a mistake was made only to learn that jurors understand—and sympathize with—the motivations of real people (“He was afraid he’d lose his job”; “She had a frustrating day and lashed out in an email.”) if they are directly conveyed to them. But if they are defended without explanation, with a vague explanation, or ignored, jurors don’t have the ability to cut you that slack.

-Bring up to the issue directly, but only to explain why it isn’t important to the case. Sometimes, the backstory of an issue is so egregious/appalling that having someone testify about it can only make it worse, but for whatever reason, you can’t simply concede that it wasn’t handled appropriately. In those cases, the best way to handle the issue it to explain why it isn’t an issue. Ex. Ms. Attorney is spending a lot of time talking about X. She brings it up at every opportunity. And she’s doing that because she wants me to spend all of my time talking about X, because she wishes that’s what this case was about. But it’s not. The case is about Y. But she knows that if you really examine Y, her evidence isn’t that strong, so she tries to deflect by focusing on X. So each time she brings up X, ask yourself, “What is it about Y that she doesn’t want me to focus on? What does she not want me to understand?” because when you look at the verdict form, the issue in this case is clearly Y.

Jurors are naturally drawn to the dramatic and inflammatory aspects of a case. Trying to simply gloss over those issues will pique their interest even further. Without a doubt, jurors are going to talk about the problems in your case. When you have no good answers for those problems, your only paths to success are to give them an explanation they can work with or an explanation as to why it’s not important, along with a roadmap to the things that are. Otherwise, the very issue you choose to ignore could be the deciding issue in the case. And the jurors who are willing to fight for you will be left completely unarmed for the fight.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

Are you Focusing Jurors – or Distracting Them?

“It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear” is a useful guide for reminding ourselves that we may not be as clear in our communication as we think we are. We’ve seen attorneys deliver arguments about X, and then found, in post-trial interviews, that jurors reframed it as Y. We’ve also seen attorneys use examples or analogies to make their point that then became the entire focus of the deliberations. Or worse, were turned around by jurors to argue the complete opposite point. Is there a way to find out if this might happen to you? And is it preventable? Yes and yes.

Let’s use the example of a misunderstood argument from public discourse—a recent column in the New York Times by David Brooks. He used the story of Noah to discuss the recent hurricanes, ending with the suggestion that, as powerful as the tradition of individualism is in the US, “strong individuals” must be “willing to yoke themselves to collective institutions.” The NYT reported that this article got more comments than any other article printed on that day (534 comments). What did those comments reveal about what readers understood Brooks to be saying, and how well did they understand it? We sampled the 200 top Readers’ Pick comments, and observed the following:

-The Bible reference opened an argument rather than ending it. As we pointed out in our post on analogies, many analogies serve to distract readers from the main topic. Once some readers read “Bible,” the rest of Brooks’ column was discounted.

-The majority of readers reframed this column as about climate change, a word Brooks never used in his column. That is, readers introduced a completely different topic in their comments and engaged each other on that—a side discussion that didn’t involve Mr. Brooks at all.

-Brooks made an oblique reference to the current polarized political situation (“Many swerve between cheap, antiestablishment cynicism….and a lemming-like partisan obedience”) which readers honed in on and explicitly discussed.

-Only a handful of commenters accepted Brooks’ general point and engaged with it. And only one person defended him.

Clearly, Mr. Brooks wanted to convey a message and he wrote an article that was widely read. Unfortunately for him, most readers didn’t hear what he said.

Are you at risk of this happening? Yes, it can happen any time you use analogies. In today’s climate, the Bible and the current political situation are charged topics that offer too many rabbit trials for your listeners. It can also happen if you spend too much time setting up your point. The more time you spend explaining examples and analogies, the less time you spend making your point—and the more likely the listener is to miss your point altogether.

Can you prevent it? Yes, by choosing your words wisely and testing them in front of mock jurors. Then, listen carefully to the feedback and adjust if you notice jurors generating reframed or off-topic arguments. Because sometimes in trial, well-intentioned, but untested arguments and examples can lead jurors down roads you would never have expected. And the outcome of that rarely works in your favor.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

 

What Emotions is Your Narrative Evoking?

In most jury selections, attorneys on both sides ask as many questions about jurors’ case-related attitudes as they are allowed to. But how do you get at attitudes that jurors don’t even know are related until the trial starts? Although most attorneys would be sure to exclude any potential jurors who had suffered a fate similar to the plaintiff, they may completely overlook those with more innocuous experiences that can lead them to the belief of “there, but for the grace of God, go I.” Preventing this requires conscientious research into how laypersons view the opposing themes in the case as well as what personal experiences it conjures up in their minds.

One recent example can be seen in a recent New York Times article discussing James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. As Mr. Comey described his interactions with President Trump, he referenced feeling “uneasy,” feeling that lines were being blurred, and feeling pressured into situations with his boss that made him uncomfortable. He spoke of staying silent to avoid entering into unsavory agreements and of “freezing” when uncomfortable requests were made. In response, he was asked why he hadn’t been done more to prevent, stop or report the behavior. Unexpectedly, to Nicole Serratore, the NYT writer, as well as many others following the testimony, a familiar and unsettling narrative emerged: that of a woman being sexually harassed in the workplace.

James Comey is not a woman. And the issues at hand had nothing to do with sexual harassment. Which is what makes this an excellent example to underscore the importance of understanding what emotions case-specific themes and testimony will evoke. We have noticed that even though most jurors have not “walked in the shoes” of the plaintiff, they have often had experiences that cause the plaintiff themes to resonate with them. While they may not have suffered an injury, have they ever not been warned of side effects by a doctor? Have they ever left a doctor’s office feeling like they weren’t heard? Have they felt too rushed or intimidated to ask questions?

In most cases, the answer to those questions for at least some jurors will be “Yes.” If specifics of a case parallel a juror’s positive or negative life experiences, then they present you with either an opportunity or a problem. But in order to capitalize on the opportunity or counter the problem, you must first be aware of its existence. To oppose themes that parallel negative juror experiences, you must be prepared to identify and counter those themes, as well as voir dire jurors on those issues. And to capitalize on jurors’ life experiences and prime them to be more receptive to your themes, you must research how to frame the case narrative in a way that feels familiar to them.

Most jurors have endured things in life that will in some way parallel what’s being discussed in the case. And given the effect those experiences have on how jurors frame and respond to the case, we should be highly motivated to learn about those experiences. As always, the more you understand how jurors will react to the specifics of your case, the more knowledgeable you can be during jury selection and the more compelling your case can be at trial.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

 

Are Jury Questionnaires Biasing the Jury?

Many lawyers are unfamiliar with the use of supplemental jury questionnaires, and this unfamiliarity makes them skeptical of the questionnaire’s contents. The strong tendency of attorneys new to juror questionnaires is to resist questions that contain statements that are negative about their client (e.g., “Do you believe pharmaceutical companies are money-hungry?”). We recently observed an example of this on the reality television show, Reasonable Doubt, which neatly illustrated the problem with this approach. In this series, a retired police detective and a criminal defense attorney investigate actual adjudicated cases to determine whether the appropriate person was convicted. In one episode, the incarcerated person was a lesbian accused of killing a romantic rival. One issue in her case was whether information in the jury questionnaire biased the jury panel.

The criminal defense attorney checked into the questionnaire and found questions such as, “Do you believe lesbians are more aggressive than other women?” and “Do you believe lesbians are more likely to exhibit violence in their romantic relationships?” Upon reviewing the questionnaire, she concluded that the questionnaire was indeed biasing for jurors and stated that she would never allow such a questionnaire if the defendant in this case had been her client.

What is the problem with this position? Everything. Given the time period that this crime took place and the rural location of the trial, there were probably a great number of people who would’ve had pre-existing opinions about the defendant based on her sexual preference. Without questions such as those in the questionnaire, the defense would have no way of highlighting and eliminating those prospective jurors. In this case, the questionnaire being condemned from a defense perspective had exactly the type of questions that a defense attorney would need to do a thorough voir dire for this defendant. Unfortunately, unfamiliarity with the purpose and structure of jury questionnaires can lead attorneys to resist the very thing that is most beneficial to their client.

So how should jury questionnaires be approached? With this knowledge: Jury questionnaires do not create biases. They allow jurors to express them. Avoiding inflammatory questions on a jury questionnaire does not prevent jurors from being exposed to negative ideas and including inflammatory questions does not indoctrinate jurors with those attitudes. Jurors’ belief systems are formed based on a lifetime of experiences and are not fundamentally altered in any way by questions asked of them in voir dire – whether in written or oral form.

So rather than shying away from the hard questions, we would suggest that those are, in fact, the most important questions. Because when jurors in your panel are against you, you definitely want to give them every opportunity to alert you to that fact.

_____________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

Is the Opioid Litigation the New Tobacco?

A recent news story in a Cleveland, Ohio paper described the lawsuit that the state attorney general is launching against five companies that manufacture opioids, saying there were “6 things to know” about this litigation. One of those things was that it draws comparison to the multi-state litigation against tobacco, launched by state attorneys general, nearly 20 years ago. (In fact, the complaint even makes this comparison explicitly.) But is the opioid litigation really the next tobacco?

We agree there are certain similarities between the two litigations:

-There’s a legal product that carries a particular risk with it of addiction.

-The addiction can lead to harm to individuals and, more generally, to public health.

-The costs of that harm are borne by the state—and not just monetary costs of treating people for cancer or opioid addiction, but also public health concerns.

-Many people frame the issue in terms of personal responsibility: individuals make their own decisions to smoke, or to ask their doctor for pain pills. But others, including the plaintiffs, use a frame that places blame on the industry, claiming that ads or misinformation misled both doctors and users to ignore the risks until it was too late.

So, yes, there are some similarities, but in what ways are they different? Joe Rice, a plaintiff attorney from Motley Rice, recently spoke about some of the differences in an NPR interview. He discussed the fact that 1) opioids are FDA approved, 2) they are prescription drugs, so they require a doctor who acts as a learned intermediary, and 3) they offer an actual benefit. Each of those is a definitive difference that will undoubtedly play a role at trial, but we would like to note an additional difference between these litigations: Back in the late 90s, no one had experience with litigation like the tobacco litigation, whereas prospective jurors today will be very familiar with this type of litigation—the tobacco litigation itself.

What could this mean? This means that jurors will be walking into jury selection with attitudes and beliefs about such litigations and how they should be handled. They will have knowledge of previous verdicts and opinions on whether litigation is an effective remedy to the public health issues we are facing. And they will have strong ideas—based on their personal experience and often, developed over decades—about who is at fault in these cases.

So while the opioid litigation may look like the next tobacco litigation, it actually comes with much more baggage. We would recommend unpacking and examining that baggage carefully, because in this litigation, preparing for what jurors think about the current case isn’t enough. You will also have to be prepared for the cases it reminds them of.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

Expect the Unexpected

Experienced attorneys, as soon as they begin hearing about a new case, begin analyzing it and planning that opening statement, “This is a case about…” Being able to provide jurors with a concise explanation of the case is vitally important, but what is that explanation based on? Typically, it is based on the attorney’s experience and schema of what will be important in this type of case. While that is a reasonable place to start, we would suggest exploring how potential jurors view the issues in the case before going too far down that road.

Time and again, we have seen jurors take the facts of a case, a case where both sides expected them to argue over the merits of X, and instead go with a ϕ—a letter from a completely different alphabet. For example:

-In a case involving the efficacy of sunscreen, or whether a drug makes users more susceptible to skin cancer, you’d expect an argument over the efficacy of sunscreen. But would you expect the belief that skin cancer is actually caused by sunscreen?

-In a case involving drugs for diabetes, you might expect jurors to focus on the risks and benefits of those drugs. But would you expect some of them to argue that diabetes isn’t actually a disease, but a lifestyle condition?

-In a case involving a drug increasing the probability of a type of cancer, you’d expect to argue probabilities. But would you expect someone to argue that none of this matters because drug companies actually have a cure for cancer (and for AIDS), but won’t release it because they make more money treating rather than curing. The proof? Magic Johnson is still alive.

Many attorneys find watching focus groups and mock jury deliberations extremely frustrating for this very reason. After presenting a clear, logical, and linear case, they find it disheartening to hear jurors being swayed by previously held beliefs or tangential facts. This frustration arises most frequently from the assumption that those factors are beyond their control and influence. But is that really the case? We would assert that you can prepare for such unexpected and often illogical arguments.

As strange as some of these “left field” arguments may seem, they are commonly held beliefs among a certain subset of individuals—and those individuals tend to discuss their opinions freely. For this reason, both the left field arguments, and the type of jurors who will respond to them, can be identified with proper research. Doing juror research early can save you time and money by highlighting such attitudes, allowing you evaluate how they benefit/harm your case, and helping you prepare for the unexpected ways that jurors may react to the case facts. It also reduces some of the uncertainty and unpredictability associated with jurors’ attempts to make sense of complex cases.

So in addition to evaluating your case based on your experience, we would advise you to always prepare for the arguments from left field. Because when you presume to know how jurors are going to think, they tend to seize the opportunity to prove you wrong.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions. 

What Makes an Expert?

Selecting experts for trial has always been a challenging task. The list of considerations—solid credentials, the ability to provide clear explanations and form strong connections with jurors, prior history of testifying, financial biases—is extensive. But once selected, their role as an expert was clear: to educate jurors about complicated subject matter and to convince jurors that they can adopt his/her opinions in the case, because the expert knows best.

Until recently, that approach worked. Experts were regarded as such and jurors would evaluate the experts and decide whom they believed. In post-trial interviews, jurors would explain why they preferred one expert over another, but few jurors, in our experience, would blithely dismiss an expert as lacking expertise. Because of this, you could find the most credible, likable, and persuasive expert possible and trust them to carry a great deal of your case.

Unfortunately, jurors’ notions on experts appear to be changing. Although the U.S. has a history of anti-intellectualism, that has previously meant that laypersons were suspicious of intellectuals, including scientists, but didn’t doubt that these experts were indeed experts. Over the past several years, however, we’ve noticed a trend for laypersons to treat experts as just another layperson with an opinion.

For example, in our research on vaccines, one layperson stated that the issue was complex, then commented: I’m not a scientist. I’m going to bet that most of you are not, either. I just prefer to procede [sic] on the side of caution and not blindly agree with the CDC, federal government, and medical industry. That is, she’s not a scientist, and she’s not going to agree with the scientists.

While this attitude is easy to recognize in issues such as vaccines or climate change, we have not found one science/medical area where laypersons don’t question or doubt the expertise of the experts. Sociologists believe this change probably has to do with the evolution of how society views and discusses science and technology. In addition to recent questions about the objectivity and “purity” of science, the ability to instantly access information on any topic allows laypersons to minimize the importance of another’s expertise and to push back against such expertise based on minimal information or education.

Because jurors’ evaluation and acceptance of experts is changing—our research indicates that jurors are less impressed by credentials than they were in the past and value other experiential factors instead—it is critical that you understand what criteria jurors are using currently to evaluate experts. Such up-to-date research is imperative both in choosing an expert for trial and in deciding how much of your case to entrust to them.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

 

Examining Brain Models Used in Trial

Given our line of work, we find that people frequently reference brain models in conversation with us. Having heard about right/left brain thinking, some attorneys want to choose predominately left- (or predominately right-) brained jurors. Or they want to ensure that their presentations appeal to the appropriate side of the brain. Others, responding to fears concerning the Reptile Brain approach, are looking for ways to draw jurors back into conscious and deliberate decision-making.  But is this focus well-placed? Do these brain models accurately describe how jurors make decisions?

The right/left brain theory relies on the understanding that the different sides of the brain control different functions (logical/mathematical vs. creative/emotional). The Reptile Brain approach claims to be using cues about safety and harm to trigger primal, instinctive decision-making. In truth, brain science has evolved from the left brain/right brain theory. And unless jurors are put into actual and immediate physical danger, they are not accessing their primal instincts or their “reptile brain” when making decisions – no matter how many safety cues they are given. So while fully adopting either of these approaches will cause you to miss the mark, the use of such strategies does raise legitimate concerns that must be considered and addressed.

Both of these approaches are actually designed to exploit the role of emotion in decision-making. What has typically been called a right-brained approach is really an emotional approach – one that tugs at the heartstrings of jurors and appeals to their sympathy. The Reptile Brain approach also appeals to emotions, but rather than relying on sympathy, it strives to evoke the stronger and more reactionary emotions of fear and anger. Although the theory may be scientifically incorrect – even baseless – an approach that evokes strong sympathy for the plaintiff, or even worse, fear of or anger at the defendant is likely to be effective.

So how should these approaches be countered?

-Recognize the fallacy in what they are claiming to do. They are not engaging a side of the mind that your presentation cannot reach, nor are they creating a path for jurors to make decisions on a primal, subconscious level. They are simply inciting inflammatory emotions. And inflammatory emotions can be quelled.

-Attack the veracity of their claims. Such emotion-evoking strategies tend to rely on hyperbole and exaggeration that when exposed, annoys jurors.

-Build your own persuasive and competing narrative rather than simply trying to shoot holes in their narrative.

-Illuminate their strategy. Such strategies are designed to blatantly manipulate the emotions of jurors and manipulation is much less effective if the subjects of that manipulation are alerted to it.

While these brain models appear as frequent topics of discussion at legal conferences, they are not accepted as current or legitimate in brain science or psychology. But those who utilize these strategies are skilled at tapping into strong emotions in a way that can be compelling. For this reason, we would recommend ignoring the questionable theory behind the strategy and focusing on what makes the strategy work. Once you understand that the sole strength of these strategies lies in on evoking and manipulating emotions, you can learn to counter them effectively.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

 

Are Your Denials Believable?

When someone says something false or misleading about us—You’re against broccoli—we’re very likely to deny it—No, I’m not! In court, where more than broccoli-hating is involved, attorneys are especially likely to respond with a strong denial, because there is a lot on the line and they don’t want the jury to conclude something is true, because “They never even denied it!” It’s human nature, it’s reasonable, and it’s good trial practice to deny falsehoods. But what makes a denial believable?

Research demonstrates that denials alone are not persuasive. So in trial—where denials are commonplace and persuasion is the primary goal—what gives a denial more traction? Replacing the falsehood with a truth—and specifically, a truth that bears some relation to the original statement. Such truth replacements provide counter-information for the listener to hold on to and provide a competing statement, rather than a conflicting one.

An example from the 2008 campaign trail is the allegation, Obama is a Muslim. While Obama is not a Muslim was an oft-repeated refrain, it was a less effective denial than Actually, Obama is a Christian. Because trials involve an intricate and complicated set of facts and occur in a context where the claims you make are regulated, finding a truthful replacement won’t always be as easy and crisp as saying, Actually, Obama is a Christian. But shifting from a straight denial strategy to a deny-and-replace strategy will allow you to debunk the opposing claims while promoting your themes instead of merely repeating theirs in the negative.

Finding the right denial requires you to retrain your thinking about trial preparation and to examine documents and depositions with this focus in mind. It also requires an additional investment of time and resources to test and discover the most believable alternative statements for each falsehood. For each falsehood you identify, you will need to develop a truth statement that is: 1) consistent with the evidence and 2) resonates with the listener. If your client is being accused of “being greedy,” the truth statement will need to be a concise counter-statement that reflects the facts of the case: Actually, that design was less profitable than other designs, but was developed in response to consumer requests.

Although this denial method is more difficult to employ than the traditional “did too/did not” method, the payoff—presenting the most persuasive case to the jury—is also much greater. In every trial, you will face inaccurate information about your client that you wish to deny and correct, so it is imperative that when you deny something, the jury believes you.

______________________

Tracey Carpenter, Ph.D. and Susan Chiasson, Ph.D. started Carpenter Trial Consulting in 2010. They each have extensive experience in high-stakes civil litigation and specialized expertise in how jurors analyze evidence, assess witnesses, and arrive at verdict decisions.

 

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Categories

    Meta