By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It is Halloween time again, and everyone who is a kid or young enough to party like a kid, is preparing their temporary identity for the night: a pirate, a witch, a vampire. This year, apparently, the trending looks are less traditional, including “Angry Birds” and costumes for this year’s angriest […]
Appeal to Your Juror’s “Temporary Identity” Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: “Were they even watching the same trial I was?” Lawyers will sometimes wonder, after talking with jurors or hearing a post-trial interview, how perceptions can be so different. At times, it can be hard to believe they’re reacting to the same set of facts. We witnessed this type of scenario
Account for Selective Perception: 2012 Presidential Debate Series, Part Four Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Litigators are interested in public opinion because cases are played out on that stage. Attitudes about lawyers, about corporations, and about case-specific issues like consumer product responsibility, serve as an important backdrop and starting point for jurors’ opinions and reactions to a wide variety of civil cases. For that reason, trial
Know the Perils of Polls Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Everyone loves a second act. In the buildup to the presidential debate on Tuesday, President Obama’s supporters were hoping for turnaround from what was widely described as a lackluster performance in the first debate: He needed to find his edge, fight harder, and call out his opponent Mitt Romney more
Be Assertive, Not Aggressive: 2012 Presidential Debate Series, Part Three Read More »
By Ken Broda Bahm: The buzz following Thursday’s vice presidential debate between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice-President Joe Biden has been that it was a substantive and spirited debate — with an emphasis on spirited. Both candidates appeared to be quick to challenge and eager to engage. Both appeared to be glad to be there.
Be a Happy Warrior: 2012 Presidential Debate Series (Veep Edition), Part Two Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: So you have just started the mock trial and you know this much: Your case doesn’t fare very well at all on first impression. After hearing a summary from you and the other side, your credibility is low, the proportion of those siding with your adversary is high, and you
Think Again: Escape Bad First Impressions By Encouraging Reappraisal Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When you lose a billion dollars in trial, you tend to look for every opportunity to get around that verdict. That would appear to be the explanation for Samsung’s recent efforts to target juror misconduct in its recent patent trial with Apple. Samsung’s claims center on the foreman of the jury,
Treat Post-Verdict Juror Interviews as Education, Not Discovery Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm Amid the spin and analysis in the immediate aftermath of last night’s lead-off Presidential Debate, much of the reaction is focused on appearance and style, with some wondering if Obama was on the receiving end of a kind of “Nixon/Kennedy” moment with Romney looking cool, confident and “presidential” while the President
Look Like You’re Winning: 2012 Presidential Debate Series, Part One Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm To celebrate the first Monday of October, I’m reviewing Jeffrey Toobin’s new book on the recent history of the Roberts Court. One thing is again made clear: Toobin knows how to find the story in the law. That is the same thing that all good trial attorneys are aiming for,
Leading Motives and Trailing Personal Stories: Lessons in Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Oath” Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm The law treats factual evidence as a repository possessed by the witness and elicited through testimony. Like a bucket, filled, in the case of your witnesses at least, with the sweet clear water of truth, you just dip in a ladle and out comes the descriptions, the observations, the facts.
Don’t Mistake the Witness for a Bucket of Facts Read More »