I subscribe to an email publication called the Jur-E Bulletin; it is published by the National Center for State Courts. It is a very informative publication and I recommend subscribing to it as you never know what tidbits will be there to be learned. Like a few other posts in our blog, this one was inspired by a story reported in the Jur-E Bulletin. Earlier this year, there was an article entitled “Helping Juries Succeed” which was originally published in the New Jersey Law Journal – it was written by attorney Jeffrey M. Pollock. The entire focus of the article

Two recent cases on which we conducted mock trials prompted this post. In the first, the lawyers presenting the case did so using 8×10 photographs of the incident scene which they held up in front of the group of mock jurors. No enlargement, no projection, just a photo. Post research, I attempted to “encourage??? the client to step it up to the next level and use more and different visuals – to use an electronic presentation at trial to ensure that everyone in the actual courtroom can see the photos and exhibits. But, these lawyers had never done such a

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (January 31, 2018, page A9), “The Mistakes You Make in a Meeting’s First Milliseconds,” by Sue Shellenbarger, prompted me to think about first impressions in the courtroom. And, particularly, the jurors’ first impressions of the attorneys. While the attorneys’ first impressions of jurors and witnesses, both fact and expert, are important, my first thoughts were how the jurors perceive the attorneys. As the article points out, impressions are often formed quickly, as soon as people see each other for the first time. In many situations, this occurs when a person enters a

Melissa and I have attempted do two things consistently with the posts we write. First, we try to be tactful, and not insult anyone. Second, we strive to be timeless, not dating our posts by the topic. This post breaks the 2nd rule, but hopefully, not the first objective. The topic is what some have identified as a change in the global order that began with the campaign and election of our current president, Donald J. Trump. Though U.S. politics have been polarized to some degrees for many election cycles, there is no denying that the current level of polarization

The role of a trial juror is critical in American justice and yet, jurors are often criticized collectively by many trial lawyers and the general public. Being a juror is a difficult job; sitting in judgment of your fellow citizens can be very stressful, and trials are not nearly as exciting and fast paced as they seem on TV or in movies. They just aren’t! Never have been, never will be. But, in a world where attention spans are shorter than ever, new challenges emerge. Keeping the jurors “entertained???, and therefore, awake, has never been more important. A December 2017

So, the reader is probably thinking “duh, right, tell me something I didn’t know.” And, I agree, this should be obvious. Except when it isn’t. The beginning of a trial includes voir dire – asking questions of individuals – to determine which ones the attorney wants to include, or more accurately, exclude from a jury. But, verdicts are not 6 or 12 individual decisions, they are 1 decision, made by 1 jury/group. As anyone who has ever watched a mock jury deliberate knows, getting those 6 or 12 individuals to agree requires compromise. Someone, or several someones, will often have

It happened last week, as it has many times before. “It,??? in this case, is the random outcome of a mock jury project that surprises the clients most of all. The scenario was as follows: we were engaged to conduct mock jury research using 4 panels of mock jurors to deliberate to a verdict. The arrangement involved a group of people who were convened in the morning and another group in the afternoon. Each group heard the case presentation, testimony of witnesses, received jury instructions and were then divided into 2 panels to deliberate. So, 4 panels, 4 verdicts total

We’ve met some wonderful and interesting people in our years working with trial lawyers. One of those was R.W. Payne, Jr., better known as Buddy. Buddy was a true southern gentleman, hailing from North Carolina, then Virginia. He took control of the room when he entered, walking with the swagger of the former Marine and former professional football player he was. Melissa and I first got to know Buddy not long after we moved to south Florida in 1991. He was a client of the trial consulting firm where we worked before starting Magnus. Buddy, and his firm, were legends

There is a trend in recent years for every purchase, service encounter, or dining experience to end with a customer satisfaction survey. As useful as feedback can be, it is, obvious to me that many of these “surveys” are better called “fake surveys.” That is, they lack objectivity and they lack validity. As an example, I got my vehicle serviced, and when I picked it up, the service representative forewarned me that his (to remain nameless) car company would be sending me a survey. Further, he said he hoped I could rate him “excellent” in all categories because anything less

In a prior post, I lamented how family and friends can’t relate to what Melissa and I do in our trial consulting business. One of the main reasons for their lack of understanding is the extremely high level of confidentiality involved in our work. In order for trial consultants to be able to effectively help trial lawyers and their teams prepare case strategies, our efforts must be considered attorney work product. This means that any work performed on the case, such as the research results, etc., cannot be discussed by anyone outside of the trial team. Sometimes, after a case