By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The Reptile approach to courtroom persuasion aims to sell plaintiffs’ cases by invoking absolute duties for protection wrapped around a fear appeal that resonates with the jurors. Even with the Reptile’s ‘reboot’ version, the ‘Edge’ training appears to continue this emphasis. In a second part of an article in the CLM […]
As the Reptile Evolves, Update Your Understanding of ‘Duty’ Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Your typical mock trial might involve three juries, with a total of 30 or so mock jurors. The typical public opinion poll run by an organization like Gallup, however, can involve more like 1000 participants. So what is the disconnect when it comes to sample size, the variable that researchers refer
Know the Right N: How Participant Numbers Influence the Value of Your Mock Trial Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: In an era of increased juror skepticism and perceived “Nuclear Verdicts,” there has been a call for new thinking on defense side. The need is for fresh approaches to cut against the factors motivating jurors toward extreme verdicts. The approach outlined in the book Nuclear Verdicts by Tyson & Mendes partner
Defense Opening: Repair Credibility First Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The “Reptile” approach to trying civil cases by targeting a fear response has transitioned from being a novelty to being a mainstay in a little more than a decade. While the approach has not always been taken seriously by defendants, it has been the North Star for many on the plaintiff’s
Be Ready for a Reptile-Reboot Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: In our increasingly digital world, the idea of taking notes the old-fashioned way with paper and pen can feel quaint. Yet, many of us still do it. For those jurors who are permitted to take notes, they are almost certainly doing it the old-fashioned way. New research, however, continues to demonstrate
Encourage Juror Note-Taking (and Take Notes Yourselves) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The distinction between what is fact and what is opinion is arguably one of the most fundamental distinctions in law. But in practice, it is actually a lawyer’s distinction. In the real world, and in the minds of many jurors and some judges, facts and opinions end up being combined and mixed. The
Expect Jurors to Mix Fact and Opinion Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Last week, the once and potentially future President of the United States was threatened with ejection from a courtroom because he could not control his verbal and non-verbal responses to the proceedings. As reported in the New York Times, Donald Trump was sitting in a Manhattan courtroom as a jury heard
Keep Your Cool in the Courtroom Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” carries a special meaning in litigation. It can be one of those classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations: After an injury or other tortious event, if you fix whatever led to the problem you confirm that you could
If It Ain’t Broke, and You Fix It, Take Care with What the Jury Learns About It Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: I will admit up front that the title for this one might sound like someone trying to weasel out of something: Trying to gain the psychological benefit of “stepping up” without the legal liability that many might see as going along with that. And, it must be said, there’s a real
Take Responsibility (Without Conceding Liability) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Seems like Americans have had it with powerful institutions lately. The organizations that have long structured our civic life have reached new lows in terms of trust, and this applies to many that have historically garnered relatively high levels of confidence. Higher education is at a historic low, and trust in
Account for Broken Trust in Institutions Read More »