Archives – Page 41 – The Red Well

Sorting out responses and non responses

March 4th, 2021|

A few months ago, Melissa and I were talking with one of our favorite clients, Buddy Schulz, when he commented that Melissa’s job during jury selection involved sorting out responses, and non responses, of potential jurors. He was noting that it is one thing to evaluate what someone says during jury selection (or perhaps with any interaction, including job interviews, interrogations, etc.). But, it is clearly another thing to “hear” what they don’t say, that is, what they are not telling you. As a trial lawyer, or trial consultant, during that short period when the jurors can talk, known

A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Strategy and Psychology of Jury Selection

February 25th, 2021|

This post contains quotations1 from an interview with LI’s Director of Jury Research, Dr. Christina Marinakis, by professional poker player Zachary Elwood, on his podcast entitled, “People Who Read People.” Listen to the full episode on YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, or iHeartRadio. On the Game Theory of Voir Dire The best jury consultants and attorneys who participate in voir dire are able to anticipate the next side’s move and what the consequences of that move will be. So when I’m trying to decide who we want on the panel, the only way we can do that is through the striking process.

Jury Pool Differences with Remote Jury Trials

February 23rd, 2021|

I was speaking with a prominent plaintiff personal injury attorney in Seattle recently about the remote jury trials that are taking place in King County. When I asked him his thoughts, he said they he likes remote jury trials because he feels like he is getting better jury pools. This comment intrigued me, so we looked at our own internal data to see if there are any differences in the make-up of remote trial jury pools compared to in-person trials. Does this shift to technology change the make-up of the jury pool and if so, how? We began by looking

How to Tell Your Company Story (so Plaintiffs Don’t Do It for You)

February 18th, 2021|

“I came in here with pictures of stop signs. I came in here with pictures of rampant corporate neglect. We have a duty here as a jury. We are holding corporations accountable. This is one of the things they are responsible for, but our duty as a citizen – my duty as a juror – is to bring justice. Justice for all wrongdoing by this corporation since its inception over a hundred years ago.” Words like these, from the mouth of a mock juror determined from the start of deliberations to stand by a pro-plaintiff verdict, are not unique. They

No One Has Ever Said They Wish Their Jury Research Had Been Later

February 16th, 2021|

In almost 30 years of owning and operating Magnus Research Consultants, David and I have been fortunate to have few complaints from clients. When there have been complaints, they have been of the following type: (1) “Your report is too long and comprehensive; it took too long for me to read”; (2) ”The charts summarizing questionnaire responses were hard for me to understand”; and, most common among the complaints, (3) “I waited so long to do the mock trials that it was too late for me to change my trial strategy to incorporate your suggestions for trial strategy.” Again, I

Mercy of the Court

February 11th, 2021|

Twice this week, when talking with clients, or prospective clients, I’ve been told they are waiting on the judge to do something. The language they used was “I’m at the mercy of the court.” Their lamentations are painful reminders of the nature of our work. Often the idea of “mercy of the court” is mentioned, in life and in entertainment, in the context of “throwing oneself on the mercy of the court” when it comes to criminal sentencing. This post is NOT about that. It is about the Court’s (a.k.a. the judge’s) ability to impact the timetable of litigation. Setting

20 Lessons Learned from Trials in the COVID Era – Part 2

February 4th, 2021|

COVID-19 has shifted much of the litigation process into unfamiliar virtual territory. Luckily, we’ve assisted with quite a few trials during this period, and have emerged with some valuable experiences and lessons. In Part 1, we covered our top tips for conducting effective voir dire/jury selection in a virtual or semi-virtual setting. Now, we move on to remote witnesses (i.e., streamed via videoconference software like Zoom), as well as general presentation technology tips: COVID Remote Witness Tips Your Zoom witnesses should create a “set” in the room they’ll testify from. Similar to our recommendation for attorneys, your witnesses will come

11 Tips for Persuasive Zoom Presentations

February 3rd, 2021|

We are almost one year into the COVID-19 pandemic and Zoom (referring to both the specific platform and generically to all videoconferencing) has become the predominant method of professional communication. Attorneys attend hearings over Zoom, pitch their services to clients, and in some venues, even try cases to juries remotely. In this week’s blog, I want to explore the components of effective presentation over Zoom. Here are eleven tips that I developed with Dr. Mike Anderson, an expert in public speaking, to enhance the quality of your Zoom presentations. 1. Sit closer to the camera. One study examined the relationship

20 Lessons Learned from Trials in the COVID Era – Part 1

January 28th, 2021|

Having assisted with nearly a dozen jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, both in person and by Zoom, we’ve learned a lot along the way. While courts and litigators are adapting admirably to social-distancing protocols and the increased (or total) use of video-conference platforms like Zoom, it’s still a novel experience for many. So, for those preparing to return to trial in the coming months, we wanted to offer our top tips based on what we’ve personally encountered in these COVID-era trials. In Part 1, we begin with 10 ways to help you handle voir dire/jury selection during COVID:

Strategies for Overcoming Anti-Fact and Anti-Expert Bias at Trial

January 26th, 2021|

Lately, we have been doing a lot of reading and writing about emerging “anti-fact” or “anti-expert” views and their impact on trial practice. As we have discussed in previous blogs, people are much more inclined than in the past to use their own experiences as the only evidence needed for how the world works and the truth or falsity of particular events. A research article in the Journal of Political Psychology took this finding one step further and compared one’s willingness to accept scientific evidence to their political ideology. In a nutshell, conservatives were more likely to hold less favorable