By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: So we have made it through the 2022 midterm elections. As is typical, the party out of power seems to have made some gains, although so far at least, the  anticipated “Red Wave” doesn’t seem large enough to surf. Going into the election, the common wisdom was that that the broadly felt effects of a challenging economy (including rising prices for groceries and fuel, and a full one-third of Americans living paycheck-to–paycheck) predicted a bolder move away from the party in power. Instead, what we saw is that incumbents tended to get re-elected, red districts and states tended to

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A bit like members of the armed forces, jurors are often thanked for their service. For the attorney, particularly in the opening moments of a trial, it is both common and important to make sure that jurors understand that you appreciate them serving, even though it is for little compensation, and often at the cost of great disruption to their lives. But stating respect is one thing, and showing it is another: As they say, actions speak louder. Jurors at the outset already feel a distance with lawyers. Lawyers are generally more educated, higher socio-economic status

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The idea that “seeing is believing” is the kind of adage that can have more traction as a truism than as a research finding. But when it comes to truly appreciating the visual advantage in litigation, understanding the research can be helpful. In the case of a visual demonstrative that moves beyond the static display — a computer-generated animation — it is more helpful than you might think. A tool that illustrates the narrative you are trying to convey, that shows what you are trying to tell, can serve as a memorable and powerful tool of

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Courts across the country are wading through the pandemic backlog. At both the state and federal levels, efforts to prioritize and to adapt have turned trial calendars into an elaborate and high-stakes guessing game about when and whether any given case will proceed to trial. Some I know have compared it to the “Whack-a-mole” game: just as one is going away, another is surprisingly popping up. Amid the chaos, there are some practical challenges for trial lawyers and in-house counsel. In the run-up to your trial date, “Go, baby, go” can suddenly turn into “Cool

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: There are a number of scenarios where race might matter to your case. Most obviously in the civil realm, these could be employment cases, police use of force cases, or claims involving unequal medical care or testing. In any number of other cases, race could come up as a factor that matters in the experience of your potential jurors. So trial lawyers need to be able to talk about race with some sensitivity. We know that the situation is primed for misunderstanding and defensiveness, and new research provides another example. A recent article in the publication

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When the other side has a powerful potential argument, but you get to go first, then you have a strategic call to make. Do you use the opportunity to get there first, address the issue before they can, and steal their thunder? Or do you wait them out, see what they have, and respond only after they’ve raised the issue? That question will come up in many scenarios. If you’re a plaintiff, then you are always deciding how much of the expected defense to address in opening and in your case. Or if you are

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