Archives – Page 29 – The Red Well

Are They Paying Attention?

June 9th, 2022|

My post about whether the mock jurors take it seriously reminded me of another aspect of this client related surprise. Watching a group of people, mock jurors, listen to the case arguments in a mock trial can sometimes be misleading. Some mock jurors are clearly engaged, others have their eyes closed, others are frantically taking notes, some are squinting (perhaps because they forgot their glasses), and others are making eye contact with the attorneys, even smiling at them. All of these visual cues are subject to being misread. Often, attorneys come into the observation room and comment on their perceptions

Masks in Court: Understand the Real Lesson

June 9th, 2022|

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: As we begin to take stock of and conduct research on the effects on the pandemic adaptations, it is important to keep an essential principle in mind: The research on pandemic adaptations is not just about the pandemic adaptations. In nearly every case, the focus will also bear on larger issues of communication and the central functions of courts even in normal times. One such example is the focus on the effects of masks on the ability to assess witnesses and others in the courtroom. Pre-pandemic, I think it was the assumption that masking a witness or a

Embracing the Gains of Virtual Trials – Part 2

June 9th, 2022|

In the first part of this series, I attempted to assuage our fears of what is lost by conducting jury selection virtually by identifying what we have gained from this new medium. In the second and final part of this series, I address the concern with jurors’ ability to evaluate the credibility of witnesses who testify remotely or are wearing masks (i.e., in a socially distanced courtroom), as well as to empathize with them and ensure due process (i.e., honor the presumption of innocence). Drawing again upon theory and anecdote, I demonstrate that our fears are much less palpable than originally

Experts: Follow the Seven Commandments

June 6th, 2022|

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I participated in a recent LinkedIn discussion on expert witnesses, with some in the conversation noting that experts are often unprepared for testimony, and often unaware of the need for better preparation. And, to complicate that process, attorneys can be too deferential to those experts, or can operate from the concern that by engaging in a “practice session,” or by bringing in a communication advisor, they might be opening their expert to lines of questioning about how they prepared. That concern can, of course, be legitimate, but the upshot of that skittishness is that even

Prepare for Multiple Choice Questions in Deposition

June 2nd, 2022|

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Anecdotally, I have seen it in a few recent cases: The deposition witness isn’t asked an open-ended question and isn’t given a “Yes or No” either. Instead, they are given a range of options, like you would see in an attitude survey or a school examination. For example, an employer was asked if they “Strongly agree,” “Somewhat agree,” “Somewhat disagree,” or “Strongly disagree” with a principal they were offered on how to handle an employment issue; or a transportation executive was asked to give themselves a grade, “A, B, C, D, or F” on how

Do They Always Take it Seriously?

June 2nd, 2022|

A client, who had never observed a Magnus mock trial, asked the question which is the title of this post during a recent mock trial. The “they” is the mock jurors. The “it” is the case. The answer is YES! The rest of the story is that, despite the mock jurors knowing they are only to be present for a limited period of time, they “get into it.” They are told they are discussing an actual, active, case (for ethical reasons, we tell them the truth). Magnus’ jurors are randomly recruited for our mock juries and focus groups; they

The Problem With This Case is the Client.

May 26th, 2022|

An attorney client of ours recently told Melissa that his client is a problem. He said, “the problem with this case is my client.” He was pretty direct, but we’ve heard this, or some variation thereof, countless times. In this case, the client is wealthy (and accustomed to getting his way as a result). He’s “cocky” arrogant, and dismissive of other people’s opinions. He isn’t well educated, meaning he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and, rather than trying to learn from those who can educate him about the legal issues he is facing, his insecurities lead him to trying

Creating a Successful Roadmap at Trial

May 24th, 2022|

It’s fantastic being back on the road. Zoom projects were great and can still be, but there’s nothing like being in the room with ten to twelve strangers debating serious topics, struggling to understand highly complex information, and then figuring out how to use that information to convince others in the room that they are right. It’s a frustrating, entertaining, informative, eye-opening, funny, and humbling experience. From Seattle to Miami, Oakland to Trenton, and Houston to Chicago, two things are abundantly clear: 1) people are people; and 2) people are different. What?! Here’s what I mean: no matter the case

Know the Other Side’s Three Goals for Your Deposition

May 23rd, 2022|

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: So, your deposition has been scheduled, and you’re just starting to wrap your head around what is in store for you. Your lawyer has already stressed that you are not in the driver’s seat at this stage: The deposition is the other side’s process. Because of that, it helps to devote some thought to what they are looking for. A realistic and complete understanding of your adversary’s goals can help you prepare for your own testimony. Every case and every opposing counsel will be different, and there may be unique factors in your own situation.

Look Beyond Your Jurors’ Political Identification: Education Matters

May 16th, 2022|

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Whenever we step up to evaluate a person as a potential juror, it can be an occupational hazard to simplify that person too much. We do our best with the time and information available, and to be sure, jury selection would be better and less susceptible to social biases if judges permitted more time and better information. But even with a good amount of information on a venire member, it can be tempting to seize on one variable and treat it as destiny. But in nearly all circumstances, it is more complicated than that, and the team