By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When you test a product to assess its performance and safety, of course you have very substantive reasons for doing that: You are aiming to check effectiveness, prevent harm, and protect the brand. When a trial occurs, however, that testing carries a symbolic message as well, with the message being that the manufacturer and seller is caring, careful, and serious. Even if something went wrong, and even if in hindsight there was some element that was incomplete in the testing, it still bolsters the company’s trial message to show that it has a comprehensive focus

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: As we begin to take stock of and conduct research on the effects on the pandemic adaptations, it is important to keep an essential principle in mind: The research on pandemic adaptations is not just about the pandemic adaptations. In nearly every case, the focus will also bear on larger issues of communication and the central functions of courts even in normal times. One such example is the focus on the effects of masks on the ability to assess witnesses and others in the courtroom. Pre-pandemic, I think it was the assumption that masking a witness or a

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I participated in a recent LinkedIn discussion on expert witnesses, with some in the conversation noting that experts are often unprepared for testimony, and often unaware of the need for better preparation. And, to complicate that process, attorneys can be too deferential to those experts, or can operate from the concern that by engaging in a “practice session,” or by bringing in a communication advisor, they might be opening their expert to lines of questioning about how they prepared. That concern can, of course, be legitimate, but the upshot of that skittishness is that even

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Anecdotally, I have seen it in a few recent cases: The deposition witness isn’t asked an open-ended question and isn’t given a “Yes or No” either. Instead, they are given a range of options, like you would see in an attitude survey or a school examination. For example, an employer was asked if they “Strongly agree,” “Somewhat agree,” “Somewhat disagree,” or “Strongly disagree” with a principal they were offered on how to handle an employment issue; or a transportation executive was asked to give themselves a grade, “A, B, C, D, or F” on how

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: So, your deposition has been scheduled, and you’re just starting to wrap your head around what is in store for you. Your lawyer has already stressed that you are not in the driver’s seat at this stage: The deposition is the other side’s process. Because of that, it helps to devote some thought to what they are looking for. A realistic and complete understanding of your adversary’s goals can help you prepare for your own testimony. Every case and every opposing counsel will be different, and there may be unique factors in your own situation.

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Whenever we step up to evaluate a person as a potential juror, it can be an occupational hazard to simplify that person too much. We do our best with the time and information available, and to be sure, jury selection would be better and less susceptible to social biases if judges permitted more time and better information. But even with a good amount of information on a venire member, it can be tempting to seize on one variable and treat it as destiny. But in nearly all circumstances, it is more complicated than that, and the team