By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When you’re analytically-minded, and have at least a little bit of training in logic and argument, then you might be tempted to think it is enough to name a logical fallacy or cognitive bias. After all, what rational audience would want to follow flawed reasoning? But just calling it out […]
‘De-Normalize’ Hindsight Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Many years ago, when I was still an academic and moving into the field of litigation consulting, I used to coach debate. Recently, a friend from that time told me that he is now coaching a program that includes a lot of inexperienced judges, including parents, and asked if I
Adapt: Don’t ‘Dumb it down’ but do dial it in Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When you say you’re going to “frame” something in litigation — no, it doesn’t mean your going to blame the wrong person for a crime…necessarily — but instead, the cognitive use of that term refers to communication that encourages a particular way of viewing the events at the center of
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The other day after helping select a jury, I stayed in court to watch the opening statements. Happily, the side I helped delivered a tight and simple theme-based opening that centered on two big problems with other side’s conduct. When it was our opponent’s side’s turn to open their case,
Credibility: Don’t Add the Halo Before You’ve Removed the Horns Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It can be a common experience during a mock trial. You have a mock juror who ends up being way too focused on what they don’t know. They understand that there are limits to how much detail you can get into within the constraints of a shorter trial simulation, but
Combat “Partial-Picture Paralysis” in Your Mock Trial…And Your Real Trial Too Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The pandemic has been a lesson in a lot of things, including the challenges of using persuasion to build common agreement. In some ways, the past few years serve as a social science laboratory that litigators can learn from. For example, believe it or not, early on there was an
Practice Moral Reframing 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: In the vast majority of my experiences with the legal system, attorneys and parties are painstakingly civil, as a rule. However, in my two most recent trials, there have been notable exceptions to this rule. In one case, opposing counsel, after making discovery a miserable process for both counsel and
Reconsider the ‘Rambo Style’ in the Courtroom Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: There is a danger in what I call the “product” orientation toward persuasion. That orientation focuses on persuasion as an outcome, as a discrete “thing” that is transferred from a sender to a receiver. The advocate in effect thinks, “I have something — it is called a correct opinion — and
Persuade Through Process Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it did not have to end up this way. At many points in time, and at many places along the course of this story, the individual sitting here with opposing counsel could have made a different choice. He could have taken a different path. He
Focus on the “Paths Not Taken” by the Other Side Read More »