by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm The common wisdom is that closing argument it the time to, well, present arguments. However, a sensitivity to your audience and to what jurors are trying to do during your closing argument, suggests that straightforward argument may not be the best way to help jurors feel like they’re 1.) coming […]
Remember That Argument Isn’t The Most Important Part of Closing Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm At the close of the corruption trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich for, among other things, trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder, the defense surprised many by putting on no witnesses and by reneging on an earlier promise that Mr. Blagojevich would testify
Keep Your Burden of Proof in Your Back Pocket Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm If it isn’t already a saying, then I’ll try to make it one: When a case gets as far as trial, it is because one side or the other is seriously misunderstanding their chances for success. When both parties are realistic about their chances, then there is really no reason
Be More Realistic Than Your Opponent Read More »
by Dr. Ken Broda Bahm As counsel begins her oral argument to the judge, everything is going according to plan. She systematically previews her main points and begins developing the first of several layered arguments. Then… the judge interrupts with a question. Then another question. Then a counter-argument. Before she knows it, counsel is off-track
When Faced With A “Hot Bench,” Keep Your Cool Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm When you have the ability to ask your own questions in voir dire, make the most of them. Done well, attorney-conducted voir dire should create a balance between the goals of spotlighting high risk jurors and safely drawing themes from more favorable jurors. At the same time, the questioning process
In Voir Dire, Improvise with Structure Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm So the company finally terminates the troublesome employee. “Problem solved,” right? In a litigious climate, the answer could be, “Wrong, the problem’s been replaced by a different problem” because what follows could be months or years of discovery, deposition, and developing strategy before you find yourself explaining that decision to
In Employment Cases (and All Cases), Keeping it Simple is Smart Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm Sigmund Freud is credited with having said that “analogies prove nothing, but they make us feel right at home.” Among litigators, there are two schools of thought on whether to deploy analogies in the course of legal persuasion. One side argues that the explanatory staying-power of an analogy makes it
Stop Searching for the Perfect Analogy (but Don’t Surrender a Communication Lifesaver) Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm Those of us who are old enough may recall that there was a generation taught to give public speeches using index cards. Those little 3×5 or 4×6 cards would hold all of the main points, supporting bullets, and quotables that one would need to get through the presentation. So what
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm Faced with conflicting testimony in a fictionalized construction case, a recent Denver mock jury had to decide whether it was more likely that an owner created unworkable conditions, or that a contractor had dropped the ball. Their answer — that the contractor had indeed dropped the ball — was buttressed
Remember That Your Juror is a Consumer First Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm From exploding automobile gas tanks to faulty cribs, the history of jury verdicts is littered with cautionary tales of what can happen when a company fails the perceptual test of protecting its customers and standing behind its product. While these lessons apply most obviously to products liability, a parallel concept
Steward Your Product Read More »