By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: While researching for a previous post, I was reading Professor Dru Stevenson’s (2012) article in the George Mason Law Review, and I came across a jarring sentence asserting that “modern approaches to jury selection” focus on biases relating to factors “such as race and gender.” The author then followed up
Don’t Select Your Jury Based on Demographics: A Skeptical Look at JuryQuest Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: (Used by the kind permission of Art Lien, courtartist.com) Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been fixated on the historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court focusing on the healthcare law. As I’ve reviewed the transcripts and audio recordings of the unprecedented six hours of oral argument, I’ve been struck
Practice the “Three P’s” of Oral Argument: The Example of Paul Clement Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: All eyes are on Justice Kennedy at the conclusion of last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. As a closely analyzed swing vote, the Justice’s words are scrutinized like the tea leaves of the upcoming verdict expected in June. In a well-researched piece
Aim Your Oral Argument at Your Judge’s Motivating Principle Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A lot can happen in fifty-two seconds. In last week’s historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of the President’s healthcare reform, the Justices allowed an unprecedented six hours of oral arguments. While still not appearing on television, the Court allowed the next best thing: same day
Oral Arguments: Cut In To Your Case Before You’re Cut Off By Your Judge Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Justice Scalia strongly believes that you should not be forced to buy broccoli. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing the legality of the Affordable Care Act, with Tuesday’s oral arguments focusing on whether an individual mandate to buy health insurance is consistent with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Defending the
Don’t Let Your Judge Reduce You to Absurdity Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Q: What is a jury? A: A group of citizens who aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty and aren’t interesting enough to attract the attention of either side. Okay, so that is an unfair joke, but it hints at a reality of the jury selection process:
Don’t Build Your Jury Out of Leftovers Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Last Friday, Dharun Ravi was found guilty on all fifteen charges of invading privacy and committing a hate crime against his Rutgers University roommate, Tyler Clementi. Ravi had used his webcam to spy on Clementi having an intimate encounter with another man, and then advertising the event in Twitter promising
Try the Consequences, Not Just the Claims Read More »
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