Jury Appeal » Juror Behavior

We Remember Surprising Images!

admin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:30:28 +0000

A new study, just published in Neuron magazine, tells us something we suspected but had no previous scientific backing. We remember items that surprise us more readily than the mundane or expected. During our witness preparation sessions we thought finding surprising pieces of testimony would make the testimony more easily remembered, now we have some proof of this process.

When you are talking to your witnesses, it is easy to simply reject some things they remember as not relevant to the case, but you shouldn’t do that automatically. If this part of the testimony is surprising or non-intuitive you might want to keep it in to help jurors remember the testimony. If you really want to add sophistication to the testimony, design it to have a key point occur right after a surprising piece of testimony.

The Reptilian Brain and your Witness

admin — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:01:52 +0000

Recently, the idea of using the reptilian brain has gotten much interest in law circles. The reptilian brain is the part of the unconscious that represents our basic survival instincts, and the latest research demonstrates it controls our behavior first over the higher order parts of the brain [rational]. I believe you can apply this understanding of decision making to your cases, and should always think through how to make your case “reptilian brain friendly.” I wrote previously about the issue here.

Perhaps the most important area you need to make sure the jurors reptilian brain is dominant is for your witnesses. This critical area is ripe for jurors to make fast, early decisions concerning the authenticity of your witness. Complexity is the enemy for the reptilian brain as research has demonstrated the more complexity required in the thinking process the more the higher order thinking [rational] takes over. This means that your witness should testify with a tight focus. It also means that under cross-examination the witness should be prepared to fend off any complexity as well as reinforcing the focused case themes.

I mentioned in earlier posts that a large part of the work we do with witnesses is to focus the testimony on case themes and to “bullet proof” the witness. We do this based on our understanding of the reptilian nature of decision making by jurors.

When do Jurors accept or reject scientific (expert) evidence?

admin — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:06:53 +0000

I just read a fascinating study on how the public accepts or doesn’t accept scientific consensus in contested areas like global warming or nuclear energy. It turns out that certain personality types are unwilling to believe there is scientific consensus on any issues that can cast doubt on their overall world view. This supports what we see at trial, which is wholesale disregard for expert testimony by many jurors. One theory on jurors and expert testimony is that jurors, when forced to choose between battling experts, made their decisions based on how compelling the actual testimony presents. However, what this study points out is that, at least in part, jurors might reject experts because their testimony breaches pre-existing juror beliefs no matter how compelling the actual testimony was presented.

This is yet another example of how our unconscious rules the mind and keeps rational weighing of the evidence from occurring. It also points out that just because your expert is from Harvard and the opposition expert is from Southwest State, the academic pedigree won’t have much bearing on which expert will be believed! Better to build the emotional appeal of your case to a point where your expert will be believed no matter what s/he says! Better yet to have your fact witnesses demonstrate credibility and authenticity on the witness stand. If the doctor you are defending comes off as caring, competent and likeable you are well on your way to winning no matter what the plaintiff’s expert testifies to!