By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Most litigators now understand that their case fares better when it is framed as a story. And everyone knows that a good story always carries a point or a moral. Even information that follows a narrative structure (e.g., I went to a store, then bought broccoli, then returned home) isn’t received […]
Find the “Universal Morality” in Your Case Story Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: If that commercial for the knife set just laid it all out at the start, it would sound like this: “Okay, here is the deal, you get the knives, the storage block, an extra set of steak knives, free sharpening for life, and free shipping if you call in the next hour.”
But Wait, There’s More: Build Your Case Over Time, Instead of All at Once Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It is an unusual research finding, but it explains a great deal of what we see in mock trials and litigation outcomes: Just as with naughty pupils, bad acts receive more attention than good acts. For both the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, juries and other fact-finders are likely
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Sometimes you come across a document that challenges your view of basic human goodness. The stomach-churning Grand Jury Report relating to the Pennsylvania State football scandal is one such document. What stands out, based on the allegations, is just how many times former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was caught. In locker rooms, workout
Define “Reasonable Person” As Your Jurors’ Idealized Version of Themselves Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Predicting is tough, and can be even tougher when we don’t believe the limits of our own predictive abilities. Daniel Kahneman, a giant in the psychology world, recently wrote in the New York Times Magazine about an odd task that neatly parallels an attorney’s challenge in case assessment. Dr. Kahneman’s job as a British army
Predict With Care: Adapt to Overconfidence in Case Assessment Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Here is some practical advice for capital defense jury selection that carries important implications for civil cases as well. It is well established that the process of “death qualifying” a capital jury, by weeding out those have a moral or other objection to the death penalty, ends up biasing the panel
“Life Qualify” Your Capital Jury (And Balance Out Your Civil Panel Too) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I’ve sometimes noticed during jury selection, that attorneys are prone to like the likable. They want to believe that the panelist who appears to be well-connected, sociable, and friendly is more likely to be kind and empathetic toward their case and their client. This preference might be understandable, though it overlooks the possibility that the sociable
Don’t Mistake Sociability for Empathy Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I’ve written about presidential aspirant Herman Cain, and his effective use of the “9-9-9” mnemonic, but more recently, Mr. Cain might be having more troubling memories. Specifically, he might be thinking, “If only I had an iron clad non disclosure agreement in my sexual harassment settlements….” While Mr. Cain’s predicament is unique, what is
Help Your Fact Finders Think About What Might Have Been Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A good piece of advice for employers: If your habit is to sweep things under the rug, then don’t commission a study to look under the rug. Last Thursday, the ABA Journal released a fascinating report with important implications on the role of research, the risks of discrimination, and the occasional absence of
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Two rival narratives are currently battling it out in a Boston courtroom in the Tarek Mehanna case. The prosecutor’s story involves the spectre of homegrown terror, narrowly averted before anyone was harmed. The defense story involves an individual prosecuted for expressing opinions and for refusing to become an informant for the FBI. A key
Get Inside the Black Box of “Intent:” A Note on the Tarek Mehanna Trial Read More »