Trial exhibits are a big part of all properly conducted litigation. Most lawyers learned long ago that showing, and not just telling, is important. Some lawyers are more effective than others with this but most of them seem not to think visually. Once again, it’s Rush to the rescue. The first track on their 1989 Presto album was “Show Don’t Tell.” Neil Peart’s lyrics for the song include the words “You can twist perception. Reality won’t budge!” That sums up the reason it is important to show, not just tell. (The song has allusions to a courtroom experience.) Of

Technology is great, except when it isn’t. As written in a prior post, Magnus relocated its office. Moving furniture and artwork is one thing, moving computers, phones, etc. is quite another. We were fortunate in that our new office space was pre-wired in a way that was easily adaptable. What was unanticipated was the degree of difficulty in moving and setting up our existing equipment in the new place. We didn’t expect the amount of trouble we had in the form of system failures! The copier/scanner is heavy and cumbersome to handle and it took a hit during the move.

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

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

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

I’ve been thinking recently about how one ever demonstrates that nothing happened because something did happen. Specifically, with regard to the protests over police shootings, police abuse, etc., how does one demonstrate that new policies make a difference? The difference is noticed only when nothing happens. Undoubtedly, most police officer shootings happen because the officer had no choice other than to prevent being killed himself/herself, or to prevent someone else from being killed/injured. In other words, they are “good” shoots. But, with regard to the “bad” police shootings/arrests/killings, the only way to know if, for example, new policies on

Face it, some trials are bad, there is liability, there are real damages. Evaluating those honestly and without bias is what we, as trial consultants, help our clients accomplish. And, that said, the other issue in mock jury research when we work for the defense is that the plaintiff’s argument, when presented during the mock jury exercise, is roleplayed by someone on the trial team and often falls flat. It is critical in mock jury research that “the other side’s” arguments are as strong as, or stronger than, what the actual opponent will say and do. Over the years, this

Boom – the verdict is in and it is explosive, shocking everyone involved. These verdicts are referred to “nuclear verdicts,” with the implication that they are both large and unreasonable. I read about this phenomenon regularly. It is a trend that frightens one side of the “v.” – the defense side, and emboldens the other side, the plaintiff’s. It was not long ago that the term was “runaway verdict.” Regardless of the term, much is written about certain large verdicts, verdicts which, according to what is written, came as a surprise to the defendants. There are many explanations, including public

In this time of forced social distancing, with many people working remotely from home or on quarantine, I have been using some of my time to make calls or otherwise contact clients about outstanding proposals, etc. I always have a stack of people to call upon, so I’ve been reaching out. The results of these contacts have been enlightening on an issue I hadn’t considered. That is, how lawyers, and their staff, “manage” the impressions they create when working remotely. Melissa and I have, for a long time, worked remotely. Our “real” work always has a remote component when

I was recently discussing with a client Melissa’s involvement as a trial consultant during jury selection. The attorney was well seasoned, has had many trials, but has never engaged a trial consultant to assist during jury selection. And, like most attorneys these days, the opportunities to conduct jury selection, and go to trial, with everything a trial involves, is limited by the shrinking number of trials. In other words, attorneys don’t get the practice they once did. Melissa, on the other hand, works for many lawyers and thus, is in trial for jury selection more than most attorneys. For