Your Trial Message

Author name: ken.brodabahm

Diagnose Your Difficult Witness

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – In the pivotal scene of “My Cousin Vinnie,” a movie beloved by those who follow legal persuasion, the defense attorney, played by Joe Pesci, asks the judge permission to treat his now estranged girlfriend as a hostile witness.  This is a request that the judge, with a knowing look, quickly […]

Diagnose Your Difficult Witness Read More »

Protect Your Jury From the Poison of the Crowd

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – Crowds can be scary things.  At a debate this past Monday (September 9th), Republican Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, was asked if his stance against government mandated health insurance would dictate denying care to a hypothetical man who found himself in a coma without the benefit of catastrophic health insurance.  “Are you

Protect Your Jury From the Poison of the Crowd Read More »

No Blank Slate (Part 3): With Judges, Arbitrators, and Mediators, Don’t Assume They’re Neutral

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – Judges, arbitrators, mediators:  legally trained and neutral minds, without the juror’s baggage of selective perception, predisposition, and bias, right?  Not really.  In the previous two posts on motivated thinking and instrumental argument, I wrote that an audience’s reasoning and advocacy is driven by emotions and not just by logic.  While a jury’s decision making

No Blank Slate (Part 3): With Judges, Arbitrators, and Mediators, Don’t Assume They’re Neutral Read More »

No Blank Slate (Part 2): In Closing, Treat Your Jurors as Instrumental Arguers

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – Your case has finally gone to the jury, and the panel is now ensconced in the jury room.  What are they doing in there?  Are they carefully and logically arguing the merits of your case, considering all sides until the truth wins out?  If you have ever watched a closed-circuit feed of mock jury deliberations,

No Blank Slate (Part 2): In Closing, Treat Your Jurors as Instrumental Arguers Read More »

No Blank Slate (Part 1): In Opening, Treat Your Jurors as Motivated Reasoners

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – The Plaintiff’s opening statement in the medical malpractice trial began predictably:  This is a case about “incompetence,” and “arrogance,” and “dangerous decisions,” jurors heard.  But rather than fostering even an initial leaning against the doctor, this message brought about a defensive response.  Jurors were left feeling that all their stereotypes about medical lawsuits and

No Blank Slate (Part 1): In Opening, Treat Your Jurors as Motivated Reasoners Read More »

Guess You Had to be There (Prefer Present Witnesses Over Absent Ones)

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – The recent trial involved two New York City police officers accused of raping a fashion executive, after helping her out of a taxi at the end of a night of drinking.  Without physical evidence (the department’s search of the apartment yielded nothing, and the accuser herself had showered), the case depended

Guess You Had to be There (Prefer Present Witnesses Over Absent Ones) Read More »

When Arguing Damages, “Drop Anchor” Even in Murky Waters

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – This blog frequently covers recent psychological or communications research bearing on legal persuasion, and an important question is how well results hold up when leaving the laboratory and entering the courtroom.  One example is the phenomenon of damage “anchoring,” or the advantage gained when one side offers an ad damnum number as a starting point for jury deliberations. 

When Arguing Damages, “Drop Anchor” Even in Murky Waters Read More »

Remember in Court, If You’re in View, Then You’re on Stage

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – During a recent trial, a witness was about to leave the stand as a slip of paper with a question emerged from the jury.  The note was enough to make the examining counsel’s blood run cold, as the juror asked the witness, “Isn’t [your attorney] signalling you on how to answer by nodding his head to indicate ‘yes,’ or ‘no’? 

Remember in Court, If You’re in View, Then You’re on Stage Read More »