By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: In the most recent verdict against former President Donald Trump, the jury awarded quite a bit more than the plaintiff had asked for. In the case of the $83.3 million defamation award made to the writer, E. Jean Carroll, we have a special case: a defendant who did just about everything […]
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Last week, the once and potentially future President of the United States was threatened with ejection from a courtroom because he could not control his verbal and non-verbal responses to the proceedings. As reported in the New York Times, Donald Trump was sitting in a Manhattan courtroom as a jury heard […]
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” carries a special meaning in litigation. It can be one of those classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations: After an injury or other tortious event, if you fix whatever led to the problem you confirm that you could […]
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: I will admit up front that the title for this one might sound like someone trying to weasel out of something: Trying to gain the psychological benefit of “stepping up” without the legal liability that many might see as going along with that. And, it must be said, there’s a real […]
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Seems like Americans have had it with powerful institutions lately. The organizations that have long structured our civic life have reached new lows in terms of trust, and this applies to many that have historically garnered relatively high levels of confidence. Higher education is at a historic low, and trust in … Account for Broken Trust in Institutions Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: There is a perspective on juror attitudes that has been receiving some attention lately. “Safetyism” refers to an individual’s tendency to not merely prefer safety, but to demand unrealistic standards of protection — no errors, no risk of injury, no chance of a bad outcome, no ‘safe level’ of a contaminant, … Counter “Safetyism” With Realism Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: I recently had the opportunity to serve as a judge for a legal advocacy program as part of my daughter’s high school constitutional law program. In watching the students answer the panel’s questions, I noticed something I have also noticed in working with attorneys prior to oral argument: The judge will … Facing Questions in Oral Argument? Think F.A.S.T. Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: There’s a stereotype of what happens in jury deliberations. It involves jurors squaring off against each other, a hail of fierce argument and counter-argument, with the jurors turning themselves into proxy attorneys for their side as other wavering members are converted or confirmed: Think “Twelve Angry Men” with greater demographic diversity. … Respect Your Jury’s ‘Informational Phase’ (They’re Learners, Not Just Persuasive Targets) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: A recent issue of American Lawyer included the provocatively titled article, “Why Jury Consultants May Not Be Worth It and Other Tips from Judges.” Reporting on discussions from the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, the article included a comment from Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. Western District of Washington that jury … Don’t “Read” Your Jury Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: At a recent jury selection, opposing counsel — the plaintiff in that case — stepped up to the box of prospective jurors holding two unopened reams of paper. I knew what was coming: If the weight of evidence is completely equal, like these two reams of paper, then we haven’t met … Call Out Minimized Burdens Read More »