Judges Are People Too

You’ve likely heard us make the point that research is just as meaningful for cases you know will be bench trials as it is in jury trials – because themes that resonate with jurors often apply to judges as well.

A recent defense verdict for a case we worked on drove home this point, as several of the judge’s findings might as well have been lifted verbatim from our focus group report.

The case involved an internationally known shipping company that switched vendors for unloading services. Vendor A sued, accusing the shipper of stealing financial secrets and feeding them to a new potential Vendor. They claimed that Vendor B’s proposal undercut their prices, and that’s why the new vendor snagged the contract.

From the defense perspective, Vendor A wasn’t even in the running for the contract, given its poor productivity and equipment so outdated that one employee described its facility as a “forklift graveyard.”

Research participants heard the details and determined that the defendant acted “unethically but not illegally.” And here’s a direct quote from the judge’s final ruling: “The defendant’s conduct was likely unethical, but not illegal.”

The judge went on to cite several points for both sides that were spot on with what the focus group uncovered.

This is why it’s important to remember that judges and jurors have a lot in common. Aside from technical issues of law, judges are just as attuned as jurors to arguments that resonate based on common sense and prevailing predispositions. Whether your case will be heard by a judge, mediator, or a group of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty, we always advise telling a simple, effective story.

Jury Impact in the New York Times

Jury Impact is once again in the news, with Chris St. Hilaire quoted in the Monday edition of The New York Times. Here is an excerpt from The New York Times article: Bonds Jury Hears About Injection Again but Reaches No Verdict

Chris St. Hilaire, the president of Jury Impact, a jury-consulting company based in Costa Mesa, Calif., said the jurors probably asked for Kathy Hoskins’s testimony and a transcript of the Hoskins-Anderson tape because they were debating Bonds’s alleged injections.

“There’s a very strong possibility, based on the type of questions they asked and the information they asked for, that there is some contention among them,” St. Hilaire said. “There could be a couple of people who are holding out because they are strict constitutionalists or maybe there’s a guy who just doesn’t want to convict his favorite ballplayer. Or there could be someone with a strong personality who just refuses to give in.”

St. Hilaire said the evidence might have been enough to make it seem to the jurors that Bonds used steroids and human growth hormone, and was injected by Anderson, but in criminal cases, prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“In a criminal trial, if he probably did it, it’s not good enough,” he said. “That’s a nuance that sometimes escapes the layman.”