Scales Tipped Toward the Plaintiff From the Beginning

The symbol of justice may be an evenly balanced scale, but that’s not always the reality with a jury.  In fact, an alarming number of jurors tip the scales toward the plaintiff from the outset of trial, before they hear a word from either side.

We have observed during focus groups over the years a tendency for jurors to believe there “must” have been some fault by the defendant or else there wouldn’t be a lawsuit.  These jurors seem to assume there is some kind of mechanism early on to separate the nonsense claims from the closer calls or those with merit.  In reality, however, we know judges are extremely reluctant to dismiss even obviously specious claims.

This juror tendency to believe there “must” be some merit becomes even greater should a case make it to trial, as jurors tend to believe a frivolous lawsuit would have been thrown out long before it got to a jury.  In fact, in a recent nationwide survey we conducted, an astounding 69 percent of respondents agreed that if a case makes it to the stage where it is being tried in a courtroom, they would assume the plaintiff has a legitimate complaint.

That means eight (or more) members of a 12-person jury could already be a step (or two) toward the plaintiff’s corner.

That’s why we believe it’s essential to begin during voir dire educating jurors that making it to court does not mean the plaintiff has a legitimate grievance – and identifying and weeding out those jurors who don’t get it.  We also believe it’s important, if possible, to ask for an instruction telling jurors that the fact there is a trial does not mean or imply that one side is more correct than another.

Give us a call at 714.754.1010 if you’d like to hear some of our suggestions for weaving this theme into your voir dire – and ensuring that you get as fair-minded a jury as possible.

Beyond the focus group: Our other services

Hybrid Process

Although many of you are likely familiar with our proprietary focus group format, some clients opt for a “hybrid” approach to combine the interactive aspects of focus groups with the attorney presentation features of mock trials.  This is a popular research option because the juror discussions reveal the strongest themes, language and arguments for both sides, and the mock-trial component of the exercise allows claims managers and attorneys to evaluate and hone the presentations well before trial.

Online Research

We frequently hear from clients that they have a tough case coming  up, but the exposure just isn’t high enough to merit focus group research.  These same clients are surprised to learn that for years we’ve been conducting cost-effective online research to provide high-quality feedback for lower-exposure cases.

By presenting the case facts, arguments for both sides, and evidence and demonstratives to jurors online, it not only allows you to gain similar real-time feedback as in a focus group, but it saves on facility and travel costs.

Notably, this process allows us to reach a larger pool of respondents than a traditional focus group – with a minimum of 35 online participants providing written feedback, argument ratings, witness evaluations, pertinent case questions and language and thematic suggestions.  We conduct individual interviews with at least 10 percent of respondents to dig deeper and “push back” to get the same kind of insight you expect from our live focus groups.

Other Services

Jury Impact staff assists with jury selection and trial monitoring for dozens of trials every year.  Our seasoned analysts have the resources and savvy to provide on-the-spot advice regarding your most and least troubling jurors as well as how to tailor the defense’s message to the selected jurors.

In addition, with former news reporters on staff, our exit interview process can provide valuable insight into the mindsets behind jurors’ verdicts.  These insights can be applied to future cases once you find out what worked – and what didn’t.