By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Something that we see over and over again in mock trials has now occurred in an actual trial. A recent jury in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania entered a defense verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson, answering “No” to the question of whether the company’s talc powder caused the plaintiff’s injuries… then […]
Account for a Jury’s Purpose on Damages Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Here’s a scenario we often see when watching deliberations in a mock trial: The subject of the defendant’s alternate damages number comes up, and jurors see it as a weakness. Even when the defense attorney has supplied all of the responsible caveats (e.g., We don’t think you should get to damages,
Defendants, Frame Your Alternate Damages as a Test, Not an Admission Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: In addition to making their views known at the ballot box, citizens can similarly broadcast their sentiments in the civil jury box. While they’re asked to merely make a factual finding limited to a specific dispute, the verdicts can read as a more generalized message about their feelings about the state
Profile Your Nuclear Juror (Based on the Research) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: As civil jury trials continue to become more scarce, the need to reasonably assess what result a jury would return in trial becomes even more important. Even when the trial does not happen — especially when it does not happen – clients, counsel, and insurers need a rational way to ground
Stop Speculating on Your Damages Exposure Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: How many times have you heard that a jury — especially a jury that is deliberating about damages in a civil case — is about as predictable as the lottery? The broad perception is that as jurors arrive at figures in the deliberation room, they’re essentially throwing darts at a dart-board.
Trust (but Guide) Your Jurors on Damages Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: In the most recent verdict against former President Donald Trump, the jury awarded quite a bit more than the plaintiff had asked for. In the case of the $83.3 million defamation award made to the writer, E. Jean Carroll, we have a special case: a defendant who did just about everything
Defendants, Reduce the Risk of Your Verdict Going Nuclear Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Most of those who work in civil litigation are now familiar with the “anchoring effect,” and know that suggesting a number has an influence when it comes to damages. But attorneys may not know just how powerful that effect is. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that, independent of the evidence, asking for
Ground Your Noneconomic Damages Anchor Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: I remember a recent mock trial where a jury reached the point of considering damages, and one juror threw out a number to start the discussion: “Let’s just say five million.” When another juror challenged the basis for that, “Why five million?” the first juror responded, “It’s just a nice round
Leverage the “Implied Precision Effect” on Damages Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: It is an important debate, and one that is likely only going to be settled on a case-by-case basis: when addressing damages, does a civil defendant embrace the idea of a counter-anchor, take the small risk of appearing to give ground on liability, while still probably holding damages below what they
Defense Damages Counter-Anchor: Get Them to Calculate, Not Speculate Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: On the virtual pages of this blog, I’ve long been a proponent of the idea of treating audiences for legal persuasion as active, not passive. What I mean by that is that they’re not just receptacles for your arguments, they aren’t just absorbing the facts and the evidence, and at the
Aim Your Damages Defense at a Motivating Principle Read More »