Trial Tip: The Details Matter

An Eagle Scout pin on a lawyer’s lapel.

A Day in the Life video briefly showing a Mercedes SUV in the garage of a plaintiff’s family claiming financial hardship.

The attorney whose objections are only sustained one time out of a dozen.

Jurors notice all of these things, and more. To them, what they observe and analyze in a courtroom is so much more than what the witnesses are saying on the stand. As their attention and focus spread beyond testimony and case facts, jurors’ observations of seemingly inconsequential details can be a powerful tool in shaping their opinions of the lawyers, parties involved, and the merits of the case itself.

Consider a recent five-week medical malpractice trial we monitored. As much as we noted about courtroom events and the jurors’ reactions, it turns out the jurors were just as attentive to the most minute details, including those described above.

Although they were quick to say during exit interviews that they didn’t arrive at a verdict based on any of those observations, it was clear that the lawyer with the Eagle Scout pin quickly gained credibility among the panel – and that his slightly unkempt suits stood in sharp contrast to the other side’s bespoke ensembles.

Also evident to these jurors was the fact the plaintiffs involved "weren’t hurting for money." In addition to the pricey SUV, jurors also noted the large house (and were critical that the plaintiff's young son with cerebral palsy had a room "barely bigger than a walk-in closet") and the father’s tendency to wear designer Polo shirts in the courtroom. “I kept a tally, and I saw that little horse every day,” one juror told us. “Those shirts aren’t cheap, so I didn’t think they should be crying poverty.”

One thing our clients learned during this trial was the importance of paying as much attention to detail as the jurors. After one expert was finished testifying, a gleaming black town car was waiting outside the courthouse to take him to the airport. Not a good way to connect with the jurors--especially the farmer who gawked as he puttered by in his battered 1970s pick-up truck.

Because strong case facts and concise, effective themes are the cornerstone of any good trial presentation, it's sometimes easy to overlook details. But jurors are watching, and consciously or not, their observations of the little things are helping to shape their impressions of the big picture.

-Claire Luna

Trial Tip: Don’t Make Jurors Do the Math

In our experience, simple numbers or statistics are some of the most effective ways for attorneys to make key points. But too often, lawyers use figures that force jurors to crunch the numbers and the point quickly loses impact.

For example, we work on a lot of medical malpractice cases involving premature babies. The way that doctors talk about gestation – 13 weeks, 25 weeks, 37 weeks – doesn’t make sense to the average juror unless they’re a recent parent. After conducting nationwide focus groups, we've learned that most jurors don’t even know that a full-term pregnancy is 37 weeks.

Therefore, we encourage attorneys to talk in terms in months. A baby born "three months early," as in a recent trial we monitored, paints a much clearer picture than one born at "28 weeks."

The same goes for a baby's weight. Premature babies are often categorized in grams, but most jurors hearing arguments on the fly don't have conversion calculators handy to decipher what "34 ounces" signifies. Don’t talk metrics – use the measurements people are most familiar with and describe a baby born at "two pounds, two ounces." The image is immediately clear: this is one tiny baby.

We recently monitored a trial about a baby exactly like this, born three months early and weighing two pounds, two ounces. When we interviewed jurors after the defense verdict was rendered, they said the main determinant in finding no causation (or negligence, for that matter) was that this baby was born so early, weighing so little, citing the "two pounds, two ounces" figure.

Our recommendation: Do the math for your jurors. A little conversion goes a long way when it comes to making a salient point.

-Claire Luna, Jury Impact Senior Analyst

ARTICLE: Confessions of a Hotel Housekeeper

The title of this article alone gave me the heebie jeebies, so naturally I'm going to share it with the rest of you!

I cut corners everywhere I could. Instead of vacuuming, I found that just picking up the larger crumbs from the carpet would do. Rather than scrub the tub with hot water, sometimes it was just a spray-and-wipe kind of day. After several weeks on the job, I discovered that the staff leader who inspected the rooms couldn't tell the difference between a clean sink and one that was simply dry, so I would often just run a rag over the wet spots. But I never skipped changing the sheets. I wouldn't sink that low, no matter how lazy I was feeling.

...

I was disgusted by the many guests I came in contact with through the things they left behind: the hairs on the pillow, the urine on the toilet seat, the half-eaten cookie, the stained sheets. One woman had soiled her sheets so thoroughly that we had to toss them in a biohazard bag—they could never be used again. Rooms where young kids stayed were the worst, with food ground into the carpet and piles of used diapers in the trash. That kind of demoralizing mess could take 45 minutes to clean up. Most maids wore rubber gloves when they worked, but mine were too big, so I discarded them. Unsurprisingly, I got the flu twice.

When you travel as much as we do, a clean, decent hotel room is high on the priority list. I remember one particular trip to Baltimore there was a mix-up at the [REDACTED] hotel. Due to a Red Sox game (we love Baltimore, but there are few things more depressing than the meager turnouts for Orioles games. Only when a "good" team comes to town would there be anything approaching a half-full Camden Yards) all the rooms were booked.

And because we got in so late due to flight delays, the hotel had torn up our reservations in favor of early-bird New Englanders. Unfortunately for us, the entire city was booked solid--we couldn't rent a utility closet if we had $1,500 and an infectious smile. Anyhow, the only place the [REDACTED] hotel could put us up was across town in an incredibly shady area. Having no choice, we drove over and were faced with our worst nightmare.

We're talking long hairs on the shower walls, the stench of cigarettes complimenting (an impressive number of) cigarette burn holes in the comforter, a lumpy, saggy mattress, stained, damp carpet, running toilet, police sirens all night--take my word for it, all it was missing was a chalk outline next to the air conditioner. Needless to say, none of us slept well that night.

The [REDACTED] hotel did the right thing and gave each of the three of us a heaping of hotel points for our troubles, but I'll never forget that particular experience.

And just in case you weren't properly nauseated, I want you to think about the one thing in a hotel room that probably gets the most use: the TV remote control. Consider the sheer number of filthy mitts that have come into contact with that remote before your arrival, and the incredible amount of bacteria and who-knows-what-else clinging to that thing.

Now, within the context of the above article, think about how often the housekeepers hit that thing with a little Formula 409.

2008 Jury Research Findings: Tell the Right Story, Right Away

If we’ve worked together you’ve heard us say: Jurors make up their minds quickly, and then spend the rest of the trial trying to prove that their initial decision was right. Now, we’ve got proof.

Our focus group methodology tracks three key votes – one after jurors have reviewed a basic fact pattern, another after they’ve heard the plaintiff’s arguments, and a third after hearing the defense.

At the end of 2008, we took a “30,000-foot” look at these votes by entering into our polling software the data from approximately 1,000 juror interviews. Here’s what the data revealed:

Eighty-five percent of jurors delivered the same verdict at the close of the focus group session as they did in their first vote. This meant that no matter what the expert testimony was and no matter what arguments they heard, 85 percent of respondents latched onto arguments and testimony that justified their initial biases about the case.

This doesn’t mean jurors can’t be persuaded from their initial impressions. They can. It also doesn’t mean that expert testimony isn’t important. It is.

What it does mean is that your opening is the most important part of your case…and you need to tell the right story, right away. Get your best, strongest arguments out there immediately…and don’t wait until your closing. By then, most jurors have made up their minds.

Give us a call if you’d like to discuss...we would be happy to share the additional findings from our 2008 data review. If you would like a full presentation of our analysis, let us know.

-Jeff Harrelson

Article: Jurors Kicked Off Case For Romance

Just in time for Valentine's Day TheDenverChannel.com(via Fark.com) we are treated to a wonderful story of two jurors falling in love while serving on a jury...for a child-abuse trial.

According to the story, the man and woman were dismissed from the 16-member jury on Tuesday, after people reported seeing them walking arm-in-arm together and giggling with each other.

The former jury showed up Wednesday and sat in the spectator section of the courtroom but he refused to answer questions when approached in the hallway by a reporter.

Here are some details of the child-abuse trial that inspired such romance:

Twenty-nine-year-old Alex 

Midyette is accused in the 2006 death of 11-week-old Jason Midyette. Prosecutors say Jason had 37 broken bones.

Midyette's attorneys say Jason had a metabolic disease and wasn't abused. A doctor testified that Jason had bone abnormalities that were misidentified as fractures.

A doctor testifying for prosecutors said Jason's skull was fractured before he died.

Jason's mother, Molly Midyette, was convicted of child abuse for failing to get medical attention for her son. She is serving a 16-year sentence.

Yikes.

Article: Lawsuit Blames Injury On Lowe's Bathroom Door

Oh, Florida.

According to Tampa Bay Online, a man has filed suit against Lowe's for an unfortunate injury sustained in the loo.

Tommy Rassier says he was using a toilet stall at a Lowe's Home center in Pinellas Park on Aug. 18th when something terrible happened.

According to a lawsuit filed in Pinellas Circuit Court, Rassier was about to sit down when a person unknown to him pushed open the stall door knocking Rassier "in the head and neck with the door," pushing him "back into and against the toilet."

Overall, I'd say this is a pretty crappy situation. RIM-SHOT!

Rassier thought the stall door was locked and faults Lowe's for failing to maintain the door's locking mechanism. The suit says Lowe's was negligent in permitting a dangerous condition.

His lawyer, Joshua Chilson, said it's an unusual case but a valid one. "Bizarre things do happen and that doesn't mean the case is without merit," Chilson said [sounding exactly like a man who believes this case is without merit].

Chilson said Rassier suffered dramatic neck pain when the bathroom stall door hit him and suffered "a herniated disc in his spine." No one called 911 to report the incident.

The person who knocked Rassier in the toilet didn't stick around to leave his name and there were no other witnesses to the mishap, Chilson said.

Chilson said he does have photographs of the broken lock that show several holes indicating the mechanism might have been moved around previously in a failed attempt to make it work properly.

Not for nothing, but you'd think a home-improvement store would have the wherewithal to install a functioning lock on a bathroom door. Just sayin'.

A few questions a jury might pose that could significantly impact the plaintiff's credibility:

-Why was no police report filed?
-There are no witnesses?
-Nobody can track down the most-forceful-bathroom-door-opener-in-the-world?
-A 3/4" door was enough to cause "dramatic neck pain" and a "herniatic disc in his spine"?

Something stinks here.

We are curious if any litigators out there have noticed an increase in frivolous civil suits as the economy worsens. Thus far it's probably anecdotal, but we would love to hear from you if you've noticed a pattern.

Personal Responsibility is Dead

According to Naples Daily News out of Naples, Florida, a man is suing Marriott for injuries he sustained while drunk at their Marco Island hotel.

Michael Fenton admits he’s an alcoholic. He went on a two-day bender at the Marco Island Marriott Resort and Spa last January. In an inebriated state, he then plunged over a stairway some 100 feet. Now, he’s suing the hotel for serving an addict and causing his brain damage.

Fenton...is suing Marriott International Inc. and Marriott Hotel Services Inc., claiming that the bartender knowingly served a person who was addicted to alcohol, despite pleas by his family.

The lawsuit says Fenton got wasted in the hotel bar on January 17, 2008, and his family told the bartender to stop serving him. The bartender complied and Mr. Fenton went to his room to sleep it off.

But the next day, the lawsuit says, he went to the bar and was again served a substantial number of drinks and drank most of the day into the evening.

“The bartender continued serving him even though he was visibly intoxicated,” the lawsuit says. “Family members found Michael Fenton in the bar that evening and requested the bartender to stop serving him. The bartender ignored the request and continued serving him.”

Fenton then went to the “large, double-sided grand open stairwell” on the second floor to go to the bathroom on the first floor. As he tried to negotiate the first several steps, he fell over the handrail to the ground floor and suffered severe and permanent brain damage.

And just for good measure, the plaintiff is claiming the staircase "did not meet state and county building codes or industry standards."

Marco Island's chief code compliance officer, Eric Waddle, sums up my thoughts exactly:

“A building couldn’t have been approved if it didn’t meet code."

One of the accusations against the hotel is, I kid you not, "serving an alcoholic." If you could sue hotels in small towns every time they served an alcoholic in the bar, hotels would cease to exist. Alcoholics and hotel bars go together like Jack and Coke--ERRRRR, I mean, peanut butter and jelly.

Given the strong underlying theme of personal responsibility here, I have a feeling the first question jurors (especially Florida jurors) would ask is: If the family is so concerned about this severe alcoholic, why are they leaving him alone, unsupervised, in a hotel bar for "most of the day into the evening?"

That's like claiming you're terribly concerned about your suicidal teenager, but not bothering to clear the house of guns, knives and rope.