By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: For once, a social science concept that comes with an easy to understand label! “Low effort thinking” refers to a mental approach or habit that serves as a short-cut in lieu of a more systematic or careful analysis. In the spirit of full disclosure, though, the concept is sometimes dressed up […]
Complex Case? Beware of “Low Effort Thinkers” Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: While researching for a previous post, I was reading Professor Dru Stevenson’s (2012) article in the George Mason Law Review, and I came across a jarring sentence asserting that “modern approaches to jury selection” focus on biases relating to factors “such as race and gender.” The author then followed up
Don’t Select Your Jury Based on Demographics: A Skeptical Look at JuryQuest Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Q: What is a jury? A: A group of citizens who aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty and aren’t interesting enough to attract the attention of either side. Okay, so that is an unfair joke, but it hints at a reality of the jury selection process:
Don’t Build Your Jury Out of Leftovers Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The “Googling Juror” has emerged as a massive concern in the courts with plenty of stories on the process being thrown into mistrial by panelists who had to look up a fact, couldn’t take their finger off the Tweet button, and felt the need to “friend” parties, attorneys, and other
Rely on Instructions to Curb the Socially Networked Juror Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It is a reliable maxim that your voir dire should target the experiences of your panel that bear most closely on your case, because that will be the source of the most relevant attitudes. That seems obvious, but I find that litigators often focus on a level that is more
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: If you are in court with a sitting jury, you can’t help but watch them for facial responses. Whether you are at the lectern, counsel table, the witness box, or the gallery, it is irresistible to observe the panel and it is inevitable to form conclusions about their attitudes toward what
Don’t Be Too Sure About Face Reading Your Jury Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Sometimes you come across a document that challenges your view of basic human goodness. The stomach-churning Grand Jury Report relating to the Pennsylvania State football scandal is one such document. What stands out, based on the allegations, is just how many times former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was caught. In locker rooms, workout
Define “Reasonable Person” As Your Jurors’ Idealized Version of Themselves Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Here is some practical advice for capital defense jury selection that carries important implications for civil cases as well. It is well established that the process of “death qualifying” a capital jury, by weeding out those have a moral or other objection to the death penalty, ends up biasing the panel
“Life Qualify” Your Capital Jury (And Balance Out Your Civil Panel Too) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I’ve sometimes noticed during jury selection, that attorneys are prone to like the likable. They want to believe that the panelist who appears to be well-connected, sociable, and friendly is more likely to be kind and empathetic toward their case and their client. This preference might be understandable, though it overlooks the possibility that the sociable
Don’t Mistake Sociability for Empathy Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Here is a question of trust. You’re curious about a party, a witness, or a potential juror, so you log in to Facebook or some other social networking site to check them out. It might feel a little creepy to be peeking in on the public representations of your target’s private life, though
Parties, Witnesses and Jurors: Don’t Be Afraid to Meet Them Face to Face(book) Read More »