By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: As jurors in the trial I’m monitoring were dismissed for the weekend, the judge gave them the reminder: “Keep an open mind. Don’t come to any conclusions, just let it rest until all the evidence is in and the time comes for deliberations.” That plea to the jury reminded me […]
Don’t Expect Deferred Judgment: A Lesson from Bowe Bergdahl Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I’m monitoring a criminal trial this week, and at the end of opening statements, the judge looked at the jury and said, “Okay, both sides have been referring to ‘AUSAs’ — they know what that means and I know what that means, but I’m guessing that you don’t know that
DUA: Don’t Use Acronyms Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: ‘Fairness’ can sometimes get an unfair rap. Take the tendency to think that jurors fall into two different camps: the law-oriented jurors who are analytic and reason-based, and the fairness-oriented jurors who are emotional and feeling-driven. Like most statements that begin with ‘There are two kinds of people…,” this one
Treat Fairness as a Reason, Not a Feeling Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Brothers Chip and Dan Heath’s Made to Stick book focused on what makes some ideas thrive and persist while other ideas die, and that idea itself has had some stickiness to it. I was reading an ABA Newsletter recently, and Trey Cox applied the idea to trial themes, arguing that in
Go for Sticky Theme Over Catchy Phrase Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I’ve been fortunate enough to receive an advance copy of Richard Gabriel’s Acquittal: An Insider Reveals the Stories and Strategies Behind Today’s Most Infamous Verdicts, being released on June 3rd. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve made my way through what is now a notes-covered and dog-eared copy. I’ve read
Learn from High-Profile Cases: A Review of ‘Acquittal’ by Richard Gabriel Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: There is one topic that nearly always comes up in mock trial discussions: the McDonald’s hot coffee case. It can be a circumstance as distinct as a patent case, and at least one juror will somehow find a connection. When the discussion turns to damages — and especially punitive damages
Expect Jurors to Want to Follow the Money Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Let’s say that I’m testifying in trial? And that role has got me a little wary? And hesitant? So, those feelings leak through my non-verbal communication? And I start raising my pitch at the end of every sentence? My statements all start to sound as if they were questions? It
Avoid Rising Intonation? Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: For jurors in the trial of Cicily McMillan, the outrage came a little bit too late. In one of the last criminal cases emerging from the “Occupy Wall Street” protests, the jury found the protestor guilty of assault for elbowing a police officer when, she claimed, the officer grabbed and
Meter Your Jury’s Moral Outrage Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Research on human decision making is swiftly honing in on one central conclusion: Motivations lead and reasons follow. In other words, what generally comes first is a preference – a desire in the form of what we want to decide. What comes second are the reasons that support that desire.
Know What Motivates Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Regular readers know this blog frequently focuses on the principle that social science matters in litigation. Knowing about public opinion and psychology helps the persuader understand and adapt to the audience. But, going further than that, social science also frequently finds its way into the court’s decisions, particularly when a
Cite Social Science to the Court Read More »