Imagine an attorney going over her notes before oral argument. She already has a solid set of reasons lined up and then decides to add one more argument that has been a little controversial within the team: some like it, but most think it is weak. Flash forward to the judge’s hearing on the […]
More Arguments Aren’t Always Better: Know the Reduced Average Effect Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on yet another momentous legal issue – this time, the claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for claimed official acts by former President, Donald Trump who faces, among other charges, four criminal counts involving conspiracy to defraud the government, disenfranchise voters,
Ground Your Hypotheticals Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: I recently had the opportunity to serve as a judge for a legal advocacy program as part of my daughter’s high school constitutional law program. In watching the students answer the panel’s questions, I noticed something I have also noticed in working with attorneys prior to oral argument: The judge will
Facing Questions in Oral Argument? Think F.A.S.T. Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The damage amounts awarded by civil juries can sometimes seem to be random or capricious. Lawyers and insurance representatives arguing for a settlement will sometimes call it a “crap-shoot.” It is true that there is no precise predictability to it. When you have a chance to see mock jurors deliberate
Damages: Guide Your Jurors so they get the ‘gist’ Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: For anyone analyzing audiences and preparing persuasive messages, it helps to know about what is called “System 1” and “System 2” thinking. When we make decisions that are pretty quick and automatic, with little reflection, cognitive work, or even necessarily voluntary awareness, then we are using System 1. When we
Get Your Jurors to Take the Tougher Path Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Our trial system is designed to restrict the factfinders’ information to that which is relevant, probative, and sound. When it comes to expert testimony, it is the responsibility of trial judge to ensure that the testimony has a reliable foundation. But in the case of science, particularly social science, that
Beware of Junk Science in Disguise Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: As courts continue their uncertain transition from a Covid to a post-Covid stance, the word from many is that the Zoom hearing is the pandemic adaptation that is most likely to become a normal feature of litigation going forward. Zoom makes it simple and inexpensive to get all the parties
Take Advantage of Screen Prominence in Your Zoom Hearing Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: We’ve all heard the standard language in drug commercials: After a string of increasingly dire warnings about risks and side effects (a list that seems to nearly always end in “death”), a cheery voice will urge you to, “Ask your doctor if this drug is right for you!” While the
Ask Your Doctor If a Jury Is Right for You Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: “We are not supposed to talk about this.” If you’re observing a mock trial, that is often something you hear from one of the mock jurors…just as they begin to talk about it: insurance coverage and attorneys’ fees. Strictly speaking, neither is relevant to the question that jurors are being
Expect that Your Jury Is Going to Bring up Those ‘Forbidden Topics’ Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Looking at the question, “What does a federal judge expect from an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA)?” U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Simon of the District of Oregon, in a recent issue of the DOJ Journal of Federal Law and Practice (Simon, 2020), gives his answer in an acronym
Follow Judge Simon’s ‘Casa Le Pyro’ Read More »