A Matter of Perspective
A recent discussion with a client about his client’s (an insurance adjuster) reluctance to engage us for mock jury research is stuck in my mind. The adjuster, whose multiple bosses overruled in authorizing the expenditure on the mock jury research, remained adamantly against it as he did not believe the defendant had an liability such that the case was a slam dunk. When overruled, he stated that the only good outcome of the mock jury research would be a defense win to prove him right. To me, that is the ultimate bad outcome. The point of a mock trial
Address the Remorse Before Testifying
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Lawsuits rarely occur as a result of something good happening. More often, there has been some kind of very bad outcome, maybe even a tragedy. For people who are close to the events that give rise to a suit, it can be hard to avoid absorbing and personalizing some of those negative emotions. For a witness called to testify in deposition or in trial, there might be a strong temptation to mentally reconstruct a bad event with a focus on how it could have been avoided. Maybe there is a tendency to blame yourself. Or
10 Years After, Part 2
Working as a trial consultant has many unique factors that keep our lives interesting, and sometimes, frustrating. One factor is the time between when we are called on a case and when we actually do our work, such as a mock trial, and when that case goes to trial. I sometimes have attorneys ask me when they should call us about a case. My answer is EARLY. Call, put it on my radar and I’ll try to keep track of the case’s progress to know when it is ready for research. As I wrote this post, I thought of
Consider that the reptile might be rewriting the law
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It has now been well over a decade since the “Reptile” emerged as a way of trying plaintiff’s cases. The approach — a mix of personalizing the case for jurors, reinforcing simple rules, and emphasizing safety as the top priority, all built on the foundation of a somewhat metaphorical appeal to protective features of our “reptile brains,” — is common in courtrooms and deposition rooms, and recognizable through questions like, “Wouldn’t you agree with me that a company should never needlessly endanger the public?” I think we now have the benefit of those years to say
Which jurors are most and least likely to harbor implicit racial bias? | Online Jury Research Update
While racial biases are often an uncomfortable topic to discuss in voir dire, jurors at least know whether they harbor explicit racial biases. By contrast, implicit racial biases lie outside of conscious awareness and so jurors often explicitly deny or reject in voir dire that they are racially biased when they nevertheless are influenced by implicit racial biases. Social science research has begun to identify those individuals who are more likely and those who are less likely to harbor implicit racial biases. Much of this research has focused on implicit racial bias against Blacks. Greenwald and Krieger explored how various
Top Reasons to Do Litigation Research
It seems that “top 5 or top 10″ lists are popular in many areas. They are often entertaining; the show “Family Feud” is built on them. Late night talk shows thrive on them, going back at least to Johnny Carson. Thus, I thought I’d list a few of the top reasons for conducting mock jury, focus group, and other related litigation research. Although they are many reasons, here are some of the most common reasons expressed by clients: 1) Evaluate the liability and damages issues in a case. This one is obvious, except that many times it has a back