By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The “Googling Juror” has emerged as a massive concern in the courts with plenty of stories on the process being thrown into mistrial by panelists who had to look up a fact, couldn’t take their finger off the Tweet button, and felt the need to “friend” parties, attorneys, and other […]
Rely on Instructions to Curb the Socially Networked Juror Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: So I almost called this post “Beware of Negative Messaging,” then I realized that that itself is a negative message. Focusing on what isn’t true, or focusing on what needs to be avoided is certainly part of communication, part of litigation, and judging from an uncomfortable number of my titles,
Embrace Positive Messaging Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: (Marie Colvin, Journalist, 1956-2012) Legal cases are about loss: asserting, proving, disputing, and defending against loss. Those who study and practice civil litigation have a strong interest in knowing how people comprehend and give meaning to loss, because that is what determines their reaction to your case. And current events provide a
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Imagine you’re a hound in a field of rabbits. As you’re giving chase to one, you get the scent of another and off you go after that one. In the distraction of a new target, you end up with no rabbits. Now imagine that you are Rick Santorum questing for
Don’t Chase Every Rabbit: The Art of Issue Selection Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It is a reliable maxim that your voir dire should target the experiences of your panel that bear most closely on your case, because that will be the source of the most relevant attitudes. That seems obvious, but I find that litigators often focus on a level that is more
Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The word “science” conjures up all kinds of images, and many of those images don’t quite match the realities. One context in which scientific perceptions are at a mismatch with reality is the area of jury selection. A week ago, Joel Warner wrote an article for Slate, the online magazine, that began with
Don’t Mistake the Purpose of “Scientific Jury Selection” Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Litigators expect to be fighting with the other side. After all, that’s what trial is about. But when it comes to making decisions within our own teams, we should avoid criticism, all pull as one, and cooperatively come together around a common strategy, right? Wrong! Instead, we should be fighting
Make Better Decisions By Fighting Within Your Trial Team Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I’ve sometimes been asked, “what is the effect of the attorney’s gender to a jury?” It would sure be nice to be able to reply, “it doesn’t matter — a good attorney is a good attorney.” But what does the data say? Last week, the Forbes-affiliated “She Negotiates” blog reported on a survey
Female Attorneys: Expect (But Don’t Accept) a Subtle Bias in the Courtroom Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: If you are in court with a sitting jury, you can’t help but watch them for facial responses. Whether you are at the lectern, counsel table, the witness box, or the gallery, it is irresistible to observe the panel and it is inevitable to form conclusions about their attitudes toward what
Don’t Be Too Sure About Face Reading Your Jury Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A Google search on the phrase “no comment” appearing in recent news yields thousands of hits — various individuals and organizations responding in time-honored fashion to some sort of crisis. Recently, for example, after CNN Analyst Roland Martin had his finger too close to the Tweet button during the Super
Don’t Say Nothing: The Limitations of “No Comment” as a Litigation Crisis Strategy Read More »