Archives – Page 45 – The Red Well

Panic codes – “Buddy”

October 8th, 2020|

This is the 3rd and final post about panic at the mock jury research. Things happen. Bad things. Some are technical, some may involve the client, and some may involve the mock jurors. But, there are things about which some people would panic, which are better discussed outside the presence of the clients or mock jurors and only amongst members of the trial consulting team. Many years ago, we devised a protocol, called the “Buddy” procedure, to implement when something bad happens. Under this protocol, if something arises demanding my or Melissa’s attention, away from the clients, the team

Overcoming the Death of Facts at Trial

October 7th, 2020|

During a recent mock trial, when a juror expressed an opinion that was directly refuted by the evidence in the case and a few other jurors tried to tell him that he was wrong, two other jurors shut them down by asserting, “No, come on, let him talk; he has a right to his opinion.” This is not an isolated incident. Over the years, we’ve heard mock jurors express this sentiment, but over the last couple of years, it is much more obvious and impactful. While we’ve frequently written about the fact that jurors make sense of a case by

Online Mock Jury Research

October 6th, 2020|

Magnus Research Consultants has entered the online age and now offers Verdict Perception Research among our other services. Verdict Perception Research involves recruiting jury eligible citizens from a trial venue who watch pre-recorded presentations (arguments) made by attorneys regarding a lawsuit, then deliberate until they reach a unanimous verdict. While there are many differences between traditional, in person, mock trials and focus groups, if conducted properly, online mock trials can aid attorneys and their clients in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. As with just about anything else, there are many variants of online mock jury research, with

Mock Trials and Focus Groups: Letting Go of Control and Taking it Back at the Same Time

October 2nd, 2020|

One of the biggest frustrations trial teams and client representatives feel in a mock trial or focus group is the lack of control as they sit and observe the juries deliberate and discuss their case. Jurors get confused, misunderstand and misuse evidence, the legal instructions, and even the process. It can be painful to watch. We like to set these expectations from the start. I often greet client observers in the observation war room with some variation of the following: “You have done your job, presented the issues in the way you wanted, to test what you wanted, but make

Don’t panic. Fix it!

October 1st, 2020|

This post builds on the last post about not letting them (the client) see you panic. Don’t panic – just fix it – is a worthwhile mantra in the workplace, and in life. Panic and fear get in the way of fixing things. I was a Boy Scout long enough to learn about the need to be prepared. In this context, the preparation is for the reality that things can, and do, go wrong with the “puzzle” of a research day that has many parts. The technical puzzle involves connecting cameras, microphones, and lots of wires to ensure that

Defense Strategies for Effectively Anchoring Damages

September 30th, 2020|

The concept of anchors for damage awards at trial is nothing new. The research on the importance of anchors goes back decades. Numerous studies have shown that the amount of money awarded by juries is significantly impacted by the amount requested by the plaintiff. For example, in controlled studies where the facts remained exactly the same in both conditions except for the amount requested by the plaintiff, jurors on average awarded significantly more when the plaintiff asked for more. Consequently, many plaintiff’s attorneys have understandably been quick to embrace the strategy of asking for extraordinary amounts. After all, when a

Don’t let them see you panic

September 24th, 2020|

We keep a list of topics for these posts; this one was added to the list several years ago and I’m just getting around to writing about it. I preface the post with that because the incident(s) which inspired it were even longer ago and happened with former, not current, team members. The incidents usually involved technical failures at mock jury research. Most often, the problems were with the closed circuit feed for audio and video. Knock on wood, these have gotten more stable over time, probably due to technology changes. But, we have experienced many failures in this

Fear, Trust, or Loathing? Juror Attitudes Toward Respirators in the Time of COVID-19

September 24th, 2020|

In jury selections that involve workplace respirator use (either directly or indirectly) in the presence of toxic dusts, a key voir dire question has always been whether a juror personally has used a disposable respirator and, more importantly, whether they believe it protected them. So, as COVID-19 first trained its eye on the U.S., we saw an early opportunity to understand how this new virus might influence jury eligibles’ use of and trust in masks and respirators for protection, whether against viral transmission or potentially toxic dusts. After all, for future toxic tort cases, it is crucial we understand how

Smarter Jurors Might Not Be The Answer You Are Looking For

September 22nd, 2020|

In all of my days working predominantly for the defense in civil cases, my clients have openly longed for “intelligent” jurors who they believed would take the time to really understand the case and see that the plaintiff’s emotional appeals are hollow and that there is much more to the case than what the plaintiff’s attorney would lead them to believe. In short, the belief has always been that smart jurors will see through the nonsense. In Seattle, where I live, this has translated to the age-old tradition of plaintiffs’ attorneys automatically striking Boeing engineers who used to show up

How Do You Save or Rehabilitate Jurors in Voir Dire?

September 17th, 2020|

We’ve written a fair amount about the importance of getting jurors to reveal bias in voir dire and subsequently admit they can’t be fair, with the goal of maximizing cause challenges and removing your riskiest jurors from the panel. But equally important is saving the jurors who are likely to support your case. When it comes to voir dire, there are three skills necessary for reducing the likelihood of having your best jurors kicked for cause: Hiding Your Keeps, Rehabilitating Jurors, and Defending a Cause Challenge. Hiding Your Keeps The first stage of preserving your good jurors is not to