By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: This is one of those times I expect my title to be met with a, “Well, no kidding.” Attorneys and expert witnesses know the demands of conveying often complex methods and conclusions and know the drill: simplify, simplify, simplify. So lawyers and witnesses know to keep it basic. But do
Experts: Use Small Words Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: In a recent post, I wrote about a jury’s reason for decision, as well as the formal and informal ways of finding that out. In response, a reader raised a very important issue. “Jurors are only going to tell you what they consciously think are the reasons for their decision,”
Dig Deeper When Interviewing Jurors Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Litigators have many options for using on-screen visuals in opening statement. They can fire up the Elmo document camera, they can call up and highlight documents using TrialDirector or Sanction, or they can do what savvy trial lawyers are increasingly doing: using PowerPoint slides. Here at Persuasion Strategies, we used
Use PowerPoint (For Both Credibility and Comprehension) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A significant chunk of a witness’s preparation for deposition is going to be case-specific, and an even larger portion should focus on direct practice. But at least some of it will nearly always involve conveying the basic principles of good testimony: the do’s and don’t’s that apply to all deponents.
Give Your Witness a Good Foundation: A Review of “The Perfect Witness” Online Training Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: There is the solemn moment when the jury returns to the courtroom, delivers the verdict, and then everyone is done. But often, it is with one question left hanging in the air: Why? Whether you’ve won or lost, or something in-between, there is a very human drive to know the
Know Your Jury’s RFD (Reason for Decision) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Many legal cases involve probability. The known risks of a medical condition affect liability. The chances of the same occurrence without the defendant’s actions affect causation. The likelihood that a defendant would earn a given income if an accident hadn’t happened affects damages. Litigators might take for granted that the
Think Your Jury Understands Probability? Don’t Bet on It Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Remember the list of fallacies? For many of us, it might fall in the category of things we learned at one point in our lives, probably in a logic or communication class, and then mostly set aside in our practical lives. After all, it can seem a little pedantic, or
Know Your Fallacies Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: We know communication is visual and not just verbal. But when litigators think of that, they tend to think of demonstrative exhibits and technology. But what about themselves? As a speaker, you’re making a visual impression as well. Most know the basics: stand up straight, look the jury or judge in
Consider How You Come Across With the Volume Off Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Lawyers and expert witnesses might be used to thinking of science as just one way among many of proving something: When you need to demonstrate a fact at an empirical level, commission an expert, do a study, and report the results. But there may be more to it than that.
Convey the Morality of Your Science Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: 9-11 wasn’t really a terrorist attack, the President isn’t really an American citizen, and climate science is an elaborate hoax. Or, that is at least what a surprising number of Americans believe. Respond to any of these conspiracy theories with reasons or evidence, and you’ll get something like, “Yeah, that
Account for a Motivation to Discount the ‘Official’ Narrative Read More »