When Presenting to Jurors, Sometimes Less is More

When putting together your case for trial, it can be tempting to squeeze in every piece of information you see as favorable (no matter how minor), on the theory that the more favorable evidence you present, the more the scales of justice will tip toward your side.

It’s a logical way to look at things, but that doesn’t mean it’s the most effective.  In the real world of courtrooms, the side with the most facts doesn’t always win.  Instead, it’s typically the side with the simpler story.

In fact, academic research and our own experience demonstrate you can actually hurt your case by following the “more is better” philosophy and trying to “win on points” by introducing evidence that may only be marginally or mildly favorable to your case.

That’s because research shows that audiences – whether jurors or consumers – don’t simply “add up” all the supposed favorable pieces of information presented to them.  Instead, they average them, and weaker or less favorable ones bring the strong ones down.

In one consumer study, researchers ran two advertisements about the same hotel – one ad mentioned the hotel’s five-star pool, and the other mentioned the five-star pool and the three-star restaurant.  Consumers who saw the ad mentioning only the pool said they would pay $109 per night for the hotel, but those who saw the ad mentioning the fancy pool and the three-star restaurant would pay only $92 per night for the very same hotel.  What the marketers hoped would prove to be a small benefit – a three-star restaurant – actually detracted from consumers’ perception of the hotel based on the pool alone.

It works the same in the courtroom.  Overloading jurors with mildly favorable or marginal evidence won’t necessarily have the additive effect you might hope for – instead, it could detract from the stronger aspects of your case and bring down your average.  Alternatively, we recommend focusing on the big picture and the aspects of your case that resonate most strongly with jurors.

The most important thing is to present a clear, concise thematic umbrella under which jurors can place your strongest facts, numbers or arguments.  A good presentation will arm jurors with a handful of quick and easily articulated points, which can come in handy when information overload inevitably strikes toward the end of trial.

That’s why a key part of our focus group and online research processes is to have jurors rate the effectiveness of your arguments.  We want to identify not only the home-run arguments that should feature prominently in your case, but also the low-scoring ones that failed to resonate with jurors and could actually hurt you.

If you’d like to find out about research to identify your case’s “five-star pools” and “three-star restaurants” before trial, please contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at 714-754-1010 or cluna@juryimpact.net.

When It Comes to Damages, Sometimes Mum Is Not The Word

A lot of defense lawyers we’ve worked with over the years are reluctant to suggest appropriate damages figures to jurors at the end of a trial, figuring that to do so could legitimize the plaintiff’s claim and lend it more credibility than it otherwise might have.

But if the opposition is going to offer the jury a suggested number, we highly recommend you do so, too.

A nationwide survey we conducted last year found 59 percent of prospective jurors believe plaintiffs almost always inflate their damages figures, and 60 percent agreed the defense almost always lowballs its numbers.  The result: an astonishing 70 percent of respondents said they would handle this by simply averaging the two sides’ numbers.

This plays out in the real world, too.  We have interviewed jurors after dozens of trials, and these jurors nearly always tell us that during deliberations, there are a few jurors siding with the plaintiff’s numbers and a few with the defense’s, so the final award is a number somewhere in the middle – even if the judge’s instructions explicitly forbade averaging individuals’ awards.

We’ve found most jurors don’t want to give plaintiffs an undeserved windfall, but if you refuse to play ball and insist “zero” is the number even if they find against you, you’re not giving them much choice.  By offering a competing view of what would be fair and just, you can help limit the damages should the jury find against you.

* * *

FYI, for those of you attending DRI’s Nursing Home/ALF Litigation seminar in Scottsdale this week, Jury Impact Senior Vice President Claire Luna will be presenting Thursday afternoon.  Please make sure to attend her hourlong talk on the myths and realities of jury selection and demographics, with brand-new findings based on a national survey focused on assisted living facilities that we conducted just for this seminar.

If your organization is interested in inviting a Jury Impact staff member to speak at one of your upcoming events or through a webinar, please contact Claire at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010.