Does calling an accuser a ‘complaining witness’ or ‘victim’ matter? Online Jury Research Update

May 20th, 2021|

A court's decision about allowing the use of the term ‘victim’ versus ‘complaining witness’ may seem trivial, and yet language is known to have powerful effects. The term ‘victim’ can be argued to presuppose what a trial is meant to determine and therefore deny defendants' right to the presumption of innocence (no different than if a defendant is called a ‘criminal’ prior to a jury verdict). On the other hand, ‘victim’ is used in statutes and does not necessarily presuppose criminal activity by the defendant. Modern case law on the issue varies. The general principle is that it is acceptable

Holiday Inn

May 18th, 2021|

I wish it were possible to know the number of Holiday Inns where I have stayed and the number of nights I have stayed in them. When my parents and I traveled across the “lower 48″ states in the United States, our hotel of choice was Holiday Inn. Often, we planned our itinerary around the location of Holiday Inns. I loved swimming in the pool in every Holiday Inn we visited. Those were the days! In my work as a trial consultant since 1989, my travels have taken me across the United States, from Alaska to the U.S. Virgin

What Causes “Nuclear Verdicts”? – Part 1

May 18th, 2021|

There has been a recent increase in the number of nuclear verdicts handed down by jurors, including the largest award from 2019: an eye-popping $8 billion. For defendants, this trend has generated even more uncertainty and anxiety about taking a case to trial. Technically speaking, a ‘nuclear verdict’ is defined as a verdict in favor of the plaintiff with a damages award that surpasses $10 million; but, the term is most accurately used to describe an outcome significantly larger than what anyone expected. So what’s causing this unsettling uptick in nuclear verdicts? And who is most vulnerable to such outcomes?

Retainers

May 13th, 2021|

Call it a deposit; call it a retainer. Magnus doesn’t start work without one (except in rare circumstances beyond the scope of this post). We need money, we want money; importantly, other people want money. We learned, the hard way, that clients need to “show us the money.” One of our first cases blew up on us and the client pulled the plug after we started spending our money on his behalf (and we had little to spend in year 1). He cost us what seemed like a fortune at the time and we never heard from him again.

Bystander apathy

May 11th, 2021|

Why do some people help others in need while other people appear to ignore the suffering of another person? What factors make it likely that bystanders will intervene when a stranger is in obvious need of help, for example, while being attacked in a public place? What is the impact of other people on the willingness of someone to help a stranger in distress? These, and related, questions have been asked and answered by social psychologists over the past 50 years. In fact, the bystander effect, also known as bystander apathy, is one of the most frequently researched topics

Heuristical thinking

May 5th, 2021|

Biases and heuristics often, but not always, go hand in hand. While bias is attributed to the absence of reflective thought, leading to limitations in judgment, heuristics are used intentionally when making inferences. Heuristics are common sense reasoning strategies employed by laypersons. They are “shortcuts” that accelerate the decision making process. Heuristics may or may not be based on logic and they may or may not lead to the correct decision. Heuristics have been extensively researched by social psychologists (and economists) since the 1970s. Magnus’ reports often include the heuristics employed by mock jurors when they deliberate on a case.

Reptile or Rules of the Road: Why do Some Cases Go Nuclear?

May 4th, 2021|

Why do some cases go nuclear while other cases with similar fact patterns or injuries do not? Every jury is different of course, but that does not tell us much about the variations in jurors’ psychological reactions to cases. There have been numerous attempts to outline the magic formula for nuclear verdicts from the plaintiff’s perspective. Two of the more prominent theories out there that are routinely embraced by plaintiff attorneys are Reptile and Rules of the Road. Reptileproposes a fear-based approach to the case presentation while Rules of the Road suggests a more principle-based approach. So, which one is

Calming the Excited Mind of Your Client in Deposition

April 28th, 2021|

Surprisingly, the task that is often the most difficult to accomplish with witnesses is getting them to a place where they actually hear the question for what it is and answer only that question. Instead, so many witnesses deliver monologues after questions, going well beyond the scope of the question. These monologues can include an appearance of answering the question, but then go far beyond that by explaining why that answer is correct, playing defense on whatever they think (rightly or wrongly) the examining attorney is trying to accomplish, helping the attorney figure out what they really should be asking,

Do requests with precise or round amounts result in larger awards and settlements? (April, 2021, Issue 4)

April 27th, 2021|

A plaintiff's attorney can request damage awards and make settlement offers using more precise or less precise amounts in the request. Conklin (2020) studied whether a plaintiff's attorney can increase the punitive damages awarded simply by requesting a more precise amount of money. A survey was given to 609 people that contained demographic questions, a summary of a products liability case, a punitive damages request, and a question asking what amount -- if any -- survey respondents would award in punitive damages. The punitive damages requested by the plaintiff's attorney varied across the surveys, being either $497,000 (a more precise

Social desirability

April 27th, 2021|

Social desirability has important implications in jury selection. Social desirability refers to the phenomenon of saying or doing something because “everybody else” does. For example, when an attorney or a judge asks a prospective juror whether he/she can put aside all biases, predisposed beliefs, and personal feelings and instead, be an impartial judge of the facts of the case being tried based on the law and the evidence, the socially desirable answer is “Yes.” Few among us want other people to believe or know, with certainty, that we are biased, have already made up our minds about the defendant’s