Our blog addresses topics of interest to litigators in jury trials. Topics range from discussions of cases, recent research, and internet issues with jurors to the highly regarded Tips Series for Mastering Group Voir Dire, all of which focus on providing practical advice for litigators.
Subscribe to receive alerts for future posts.This is Part 1 of the two-part series on the application of AI and AI chatbots to the field of trial consulting. A key to understanding the potential (and drawbacks) of AI chatbots in the field of trial consulting is understanding what AI and AI chatbots are, how they are constructed/trained, and their limitations. Part 1 addresses these issues and Part 2 focuses on the uses (and potential uses) of AI chatbots in trial consulting.
Read MoreWith all the buzz about AI, or more specifically, the combination of AI, large language models (LLMs), and natural language processing (NLP) that is the basis of ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Google’s Bard, it is natural to consider the impact of these tools on trial consulting.
Read MoreWhile once a rarity, internet research on potential jurors in advance of trial has become fairly commonplace. Research companies, like Vijilent, have brought to bear sophisticated tools to assist attorneys in their efforts to understand the potential jurors they face. This is fortunate, since research has shown that such research companies are far superior to attorneys and law firms in finding social media accounts of potential jurors. While establishing and analyzing jurors’ social media pages is a necessary and important first step, does that give us the most complete picture of who our jurors are? Is this their overall juror internet footprint?
Read MoreIn many, if not most, jurisdictions, the list of potential jurors is made available to the parties at some point before the day jury selection begins. As a trial consultant, I am often called upon to conduct research on potential jurors before trial. This research consists of general Internet searches and utilizing sources like social media (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Instagram), news media, publicly available databases (e.g., political contributions, parties in civil lawsuits, housing values, and other public records, etc.), and any custom databases developed specifically for the litigation. Discussions of these activities can be found in chapter 8, “Jurors and the Internet,” of my book Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection.
However, what happens when you don’t get the jury list until the day of trial?
Read MoreThe impact of the internet on jury trials has been dramatic, both in terms of jury selection (e.g., conducting internet searches on potential jurors, monitoring of jurors’ social media accounts, and identifying jurors’ activities on news media social media posts) and the potential for jurors to engage in inappropriate online activities (e.g., searching for case related information, following media coverage, and seeking legal definitions). While both areas are important, the first of these developments will be our focus here.
Read MoreIt is becoming fairly commonplace for trial consultants, attorneys, and other entities to search for potential jurors’ social media presence. However, limiting internet investigations of potential jurors to traditional “Google searches,” Westlaw or similar databases, and searches of social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, among others, misses an underutilized, but important resource—news media postings on social media.
Read MoreSo far, our Tips series has focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3), capitalizing on open-ended questions to increase our understanding of jurors (Tip 4), avoiding the “looking good” bias (Tip 5), crafting questions with the “bad” answer in mind (Tip 6), using questions that contrast viewpoints or positions (Tip 7), the need to intersperse majority response questions to foster continued participation (Tip 8), and using the springboard method to encourage participation (Tip 9). Our next tip addresses the silent or “hiding” juror who seeks to avoid participation during voir dire.
Read MoreSo far, our Tips series has focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3), capitalizing on open-ended questions to increase our understanding of jurors (Tip 4), avoiding the “looking good” bias (Tip 5), crafting questions with the “bad” answer in mind (Tip 6), using questions that contrast viewpoints or positions (Tip 7), and the need to intersperse majority response questions to foster continued participation (Tip 8). Our next tip addresses the springboard method of questioning that enhances juror participation during voir dire.
Read MoreSo far, our Tips series has focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3), capitalizing on open-ended questions to increase our understanding of jurors (Tip 4), avoiding the “looking good” bias (Tip 5), crafting questions with the “bad” answer in mind (Tip 6), and using questions that contrast viewpoints or positions (Tip 7). Our next tip addresses asking questions later in voir dire where the majority of jurors will raise their hands.
Read MoreSo far, our Tips series has focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3), capitalizing on open-ended questions to increase our understanding of jurors (Tip 4), avoiding the “looking good” bias (Tip 5), and crafting questions with the “bad” answer in mind (Tip 6). Our next tip addresses asking questions that contrast important positions within the same question.
Read MoreSo far, our Tips series has focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3), capitalizing on open-ended questions to increase our understanding of jurors (Tip 4), and avoiding the “looking good” bias (Tip 5). Our next tip addresses potential “bad” answers and how to use them to ask better questions and get better overall results.
Read MoreThe initial tips in our Tips series have focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3) and capitalizing on open-ended questions (Tip 4) to increase our understanding of jurors. Now I turn to a major problem in jury selection, the looking good bias, and how to avoid evoking it in jurors.
Read MoreI turn now to the nature of the questions themselves, in particular open-ended versus closed-ended questions. While both of these formats have their place in a well-conducted voir dire, one format, open-ended questions, deserves special attention. Knowing how and when to use open-ended questions can vastly improve your effectiveness in jury selection.
Read MoreWhile attorneys rely on jurors to raise their hands, jurors are often reluctant to do so. Using techniques to encourage jurors to raise their hands at the beginning of voir dire (e.g., initial hand-raising) will help jurors feel more comfortable, fostering initial participation and setting the stage for greater participation as voir dire continues.
Read MoreVoir dire can be an intimidating situation for the attorney—but just think what it is like for the potential juror. Answering questions, often of a personal nature, in open court, in front of their fellow jurors, the judge, attorneys, and even the media can make anyone nervous and reluctant to talk. But talk they must if we are to have a useful voir dire.
Read MoreGroup voir dire is the most challenging format for questioning jurors and getting them to respond honestly and candidly. The first tip in our series focuses less on the jurors and more on the attorney who is conducting voir dire questioning. It is the orientation or approach that the attorney takes to the questioning process that sets the tone for voir dire.
Read MoreGroup voir dire is the most challenging format for questioning jurors and getting them to respond honestly and candidly. However, it is not hopeless. Over the course of future posts, I will present a series of short tips on how you can conduct group voir dire more effectively and get the most out of this format.
Read More
