Your Trial Message

Adapting to Jurors

Time Your Arguments to the Judge’s Lunch Breaks (and Adapt to All Decision Makers’ “Cognitive Load”)

By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – Anyone who argues in front of judges knows that human factors can weigh as heavily as the law in determining your judge’s decisions.  But it is still possible at times to be surprised at the degree of influence, as well as the banality of those human factors.  Case in […]

Time Your Arguments to the Judge’s Lunch Breaks (and Adapt to All Decision Makers’ “Cognitive Load”) Read More »

Voir Dire Potential Jurors on Economic Security: A Vulnerable Juror Can Make for a Vulnerable Defense (Part Two)

By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – Last week, in part one of this post, I wrote about the increasing tendency for jurors to express irritation and insecurity at the prospect of serving out their jury duty, a greater proportion of hardship claims, and some recent research showing that the resulting changes in the jury pool could lead to

Voir Dire Potential Jurors on Economic Security: A Vulnerable Juror Can Make for a Vulnerable Defense (Part Two) Read More »

Assess Your Juror’s Economic Security: A Vulnerable Juror Can Make for a Vulnerable Defense (Part One)

By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – The situation has been noted with a surprising frequency:  Instead of filing in quietly to fulfill their civic duty, prospective jurors in voir dire have expressed a deep frustration over the litigation process and a deep concern over serving.  Most recently, an article in the National Law Journal noted this

Assess Your Juror’s Economic Security: A Vulnerable Juror Can Make for a Vulnerable Defense (Part One) Read More »

Avoid the “And Another Thing…” Style in Rebuttal

By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – For all the careful attention and planning that goes into a good opening statement story, and a strong closing argument structure, the rebuttal can end up sounding like an afterthought — especially when it is an afterthought.  Composed on the fly while listening to your opponent’s argument, your rebuttal can often be reduced to

Avoid the “And Another Thing…” Style in Rebuttal Read More »

Expert Witnesses: When Criticized, Don’t Just Respond, Riposte!

By:  Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – In fencing, a “riposte” is the act of turning away an attack (a parry) and converting it into a strike back at your opponent.  In common conversation, a riposte means answering an attack or an insult with a witty reply.  In either case, it is a good come back that converts defense

Expert Witnesses: When Criticized, Don’t Just Respond, Riposte! Read More »

Know Your ‘God Terms’ and Your ‘Devil Terms’

By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – The need for a theme that communicates, simplifies, and unites your case has become common sense to litigators.  But the way that we come up with a theme is a little more mysterious.  Some see theme creation as an act of laborious analysis, developed out of a painstaking accounting

Know Your ‘God Terms’ and Your ‘Devil Terms’ Read More »

The Jury is Out: Make the Most of Your Experience In an Era of Fewer Trials

By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – We’ve now been using the phrase “the vanishing jury trial,” for almost a decade, and the decline continues.  The days when experienced lawyers could count on finding themselves in front of a jury several times a month are gone, as today’s cases are increasingly resolved by judges, mediators, arbitrators, and other routes

The Jury is Out: Make the Most of Your Experience In an Era of Fewer Trials Read More »

In Patent Arguments, Remember that Words Don’t Have Meaning

By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – Okay, that is a deliberately provocative title, but I mean it literally:  words don’t have meaning any more than scissors have cut paper.  Meaning isn’t an inherent or immutable attribute or possession of a word (something it “has”), but is rather an effect of the word when used in

In Patent Arguments, Remember that Words Don’t Have Meaning Read More »

When Crossing or Responding to Your Opposing Expert Witness, Look for the L.I.E. (Large Internal Error)

By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – When the case comes down to ‘expert versus expert,’ one important question is, what makes jurors believe one expert witness over another?  Applying the rational model of law, we would like to think that jurors would evaluate the credentials, the methodology, and the strength of the conclusions offered, and

When Crossing or Responding to Your Opposing Expert Witness, Look for the L.I.E. (Large Internal Error) Read More »