By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Witnesses make mistakes. And for the adversary, those mistakes can make for useful and entertaining cross-examination. We expect that to occur with fact witnesses who might be naive to the legal process and the attorney’s goals, but is there less opportunity to pounce on those mistakes when examining an expert? […]
Look for the Expert’s Mental Mistakes Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: There is quiet in the courtroom after the key witness on the stand is asked the critical question. As the jury, judge, and counsel wait for the answer, the witness pauses, looks up toward the ceiling, then looks back down, and answers.
Don’t Assume Looking Up Means Lying (But Do Assume Jurors Might Think That) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: “Falsehood flies,” Jonathan Swift wrote, “and the truth comes limping after it.” Another version, attributed to Mark Twain, has the lie getting halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its shoes on. Both sentiments note the advantage that the false can sometimes have over the true. Modern
Make the Truth at Least as Sticky as the Myths Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The basics of public speaking aren’t that hard to learn. But among even experienced speakers and persuaders, some seem to be more magnetic than others. That factor, charisma, makes the speaker more interesting and the content more likely to seem clear and influential. It is believed that the charisma factor played an
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Wherever juries are used, we tend to expect quite a lot out of them. As Marie Comiskey, Senior Counsel with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, has written, “While first-year law students are given a semester to learn the rudiments of criminal law, jurors are expected to become conversant with the essential
Consider Planting a Decision Tree in Your Next Trial Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Sometimes the facts are right in front of the jurors’ faces, and other times they are in a black box needing to be inferred rather than observed. Intent is one such black box issue. In a recent case, for example, jurors had to decide if a defendant, John Lewis, acted in a “willful,
Slow it Down…to Emphasize Intent Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When people laugh together, they’re willing to disclose more to each other. A recent post in Psyblog highlights a study (Gray, Parkinson, & Dunbar, 2015) in which groups of strangers sat together to watch a video documentary, a boring clip about golf, or a comedian. Those who watched the comedian were more likely to
Share a Laugh…in Order to Promote Disclosure in Voir Dire Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: One theme that long-time readers of this blog will recognize is that persuasion is essentially self-persuasion. Rather than accepting what I call the “consumer model” of persuasion, in which an advocate presents a fully-formed position to an audience who either “buys” it or doesn’t, I see persuasion as an act that requires participation from your
Should You Ask Rhetorical Questions? Yes, You Should Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A dominant factor motivating discussions of the jury is the factor of bias: Identifying it, striking the worst of it, and adapting to the the portion that remains. But if bias stems from the facts of being human, developing experience, and having attitudes (and it does), then there is no reason to
Worry About Biased Judges Too (Another Argument for a Restored Civil Jury) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The credit for the clever title goes to Olivia Nuzzi, political reporter for The Daily Beast, who tweeted that quotation out following the email hack releasing nearly 20,000 of the Democratic National Committee’s emails just ahead of their national convention. The result of several intrusions, which seem to bear a circumstantial connection to
Dance Like No One is Watching; Email Like It May One Day Be Read Aloud in a Deposition Read More »