By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The court’s purpose in voir dire is to use the time to identify and eliminate those jurors who would have the hardest time giving the case a fair hearing. But layered onto that purpose is the advocate’s goal of working toward a jury that is most likely to be favorable to […]
Voir Dire: Before You Ask”Can You Be Fair?” Know What You Want the Answer to Be Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: It is a common step in the plaintiff’s voir dire: Ms. Smith, if you are selected for this jury, and if the evidence proves to you that the damages to my client justify a high figure, like ten million dollars, would you be able to award damages at that level? What
False Promises: Answer the Plaintiff’s Damages “Pre-Commitments” in Voir Dire Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Most of those who work in civil litigation are now familiar with the “anchoring effect,” and know that suggesting a number has an influence when it comes to damages. But attorneys may not know just how powerful that effect is. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that, independent of the evidence, asking for
Ground Your Noneconomic Damages Anchor Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: I remember a recent mock trial where a jury reached the point of considering damages, and one juror threw out a number to start the discussion: “Let’s just say five million.” When another juror challenged the basis for that, “Why five million?” the first juror responded, “It’s just a nice round
Leverage the “Implied Precision Effect” on Damages Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: It is an important debate, and one that is likely only going to be settled on a case-by-case basis: when addressing damages, does a civil defendant embrace the idea of a counter-anchor, take the small risk of appearing to give ground on liability, while still probably holding damages below what they
Defense Damages Counter-Anchor: Get Them to Calculate, Not Speculate Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: On the virtual pages of this blog, I’ve long been a proponent of the idea of treating audiences for legal persuasion as active, not passive. What I mean by that is that they’re not just receptacles for your arguments, they aren’t just absorbing the facts and the evidence, and at the
Aim Your Damages Defense at a Motivating Principle Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: In Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington DC, Donald Trump is facing the looming prospect of jury trials. While the word is overused these days, it is truly unprecedented for a once and maybe-future President to be facing federal and state charges. With trials for co-conspirators starting as early as next
The Trump Juries: Adapt Your Procedures for Higher Profile Jury Selections Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The Covid pandemic is now mostly in the rear-view mirror, but in now busy courthouses across the country, the juries who are returning seem a little different. Based on common experience, they appear to have more anti-corporate attitudes and to harbor greater suspicion toward large institutions. They seem to have less
Defendants – Argue Damages Differently Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: When it comes to witness goals in deposition or in trial, I think there are many useful perspectives. But looking at the range of possible advice, I think there are two bad ends of the spectrum. On one end, there is woodshedding. Despite ethical considerations, attorneys can be swayed by a
Witnesses, Make This Your North Star: The Best Answer the Facts Allow Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The number of criminal indictments against Donald Trump is now up to four. In the self-sealing belief systems of some of the former President’s more zealous supporters, if prosecutors are going after Trump, that means they’re corrupt, and if judges are siding with those prosecutors, they’re also corrupt. And, by extension,
Don’t Dox Your Jurors Read More »