Your Juror is on the Net, Or Will Be Soon

Want to know more about the jurors hearing your case? Chances are, you can read about them online. National data from our focus groups show the number of jurors reporting they belong to some kind of social networking site has grown steadily since we began tracking in 2008.
In addition, the average age of those reporting an online social presence is increasing. In 2008, just 14% of jurors older than 40 years reported belonging to an online social site. So far, during just the first half of 2010, 40% of those older than 40 report having a Facebook or MySpace page, or similar online social network.

Further, the potential sources for jurors to “express” themselves or provide critical personal information continues to grow, as we have seen with sites like Twitter and LinkedIn.

Remember, researching jurors online is not just valuable for jury selection. Understanding a juror’s social priorities and language traits can help you better tailor themes, arguments, and words to fit your jury panel’s world views.

Call us if you’d like to know more.

The Right Words in the Right Venue

True Story. We were listening to the radio the other day as a German bakery owner hoping to entice new customers explained in his thick accent that he was a “master-baker.” We laughed and then decided to remind everyone of the importance of choosing the right words in the right venue.

Words create emotions and build context for the audience. And as you probably know, choosing the right words and using them to develop a context that benefits your case is the difference between communicating your point persuasively and communicating something very, very different.

We recently fielded a survey in which jurors were asked what attributes make a good nurse. Respondents were offered a range of choices including “advanced specialty training,” “responds quickly,” and “at least five years experience.”

And what was the highest-scoring attribute by a 2:1 margin? “A kind, compassionate bedside manner.”

This response mirrors our national research findings, where jurors consistently cite “compassionate," “caring” and “spends more time with patients” as the qualities they most desire in a nurse. Using language that evokes positive perceptions of a nurse or a witness early in trial can have a tremendous effect on how jurors filter and envision the details of an event.

Next time you’re in trial, use the emotional words that will play to predispositions about what a juror wants in a caregiver or other witnesses. It’ll paint a positive picture in jurors’ minds. Call us if we can help you choose the right words for your next trial.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm…March 2010

Unless you’re a superhero masquerading as an attorney, chances are telepathy isn’t among your abilities. Instead, you’re stuck divining jurors’ thoughts by monitoring body language or note-taking – and assuming feverish writing is related to your brilliant cross-examination, rather than a grocery list or screenplay pitch.

Fortunately, more and more courts are allowing jurors to submit written questions to witnesses following the attorneys’ examinations. These questions provide a much better gauge of juror leanings during trial by revealing what made sense to them, what did not, and what else they want to know.

Although some lawyers may prefer the “ignorance is bliss” approach to trial – learning what the jury was thinking only when the verdict is read and not before – we respectfully disagree.

As we have observed during our focus groups and mock trials, the ability to identify and answer questions from the outset prevents the dangerous juror tendency to make up their own answers based on potentially inaccurate, pre-existing knowledge. Pre-trial jury research can help to eliminate and address the majority of likely juror questions, and allowing jurors to submit questions during trial adds another layer of proactive protection from harmful juror assumptions.

During a recent trial, juror questions were eye-opening. After nearly four hours of expert testimony explaining the plaintiff’s causation theory, a high-priced, self-important expert witness received the following query: “So I don’t understand…what exactly is your theory on why the plaintiff was injured?”

With that one question, from arguably the most intelligent juror on the panel, the defense knew the plaintiff’s “star expert” explanation had failed to resonate, and, most importantly, that despite four days of testimony, jurors were still observing the plaintiff’s case with a highly critical eye.

So until your superpowers include mind-reading, encouraging the court to allow juror questions can be a great way to get into jurors’ heads and adjust your case accordingly – before they announce a verdict you don’t want to hear.

-Claire Luna

Jury Impact's 2009 Med-Mal Awards

The “fashionistas” are out and E!’s “Red Carpet” is back, and that can only mean one thing – Oscar season. So in the spirit of the festivities we’re presenting our own "2009 Med-Mal Awards!”

Last year, we conducted research in med-mal cases nationwide. Despite radical differences in fact patterns and jurisdiction, similar themes--for the plaintiff and defense--always seem to register. We see it time and again…jurors “classify” cases into a few categories. That means common themes emerge. So which themes were juror favorites in 2009?

First, our award for Most Popular Plaintiff Theme. And the nominees are:

Delays in Care
Communication Breakdowns
Not Enough Tests
High-Risk Patients Deserve a Higher Level of Care
The Splash Effect: when jurors apportion responsibility to everyone
because they perceive negligence on one party.

And the award for Most Popular Plaintiff Theme goes to…“The Splash Effect!” In a whopping 38% of cases, we saw “splash” in one form or another.

Next, our award for Most Resonant Defense Theme. And the nominees are:

Credible Alternate Causes
Inevitable Outcome
Moment-to-Moment Care
Personal Responsibility: either failing to take care of themselves
and/or for not communicating with caregivers.

And the award for Most Resonant Defense Theme goes to…“Inevitable Outcomes.” In a massive 56% of our cases last year, jurors expressed the opinion that “outcomes were inevitable” because a pre-existing or rare condition prevented caregivers from effectively diagnosing or treating the patient.

Uh-oh, the band is starting to play. How close was the vote? To find out, or for more information about themes that resonate and the language we use to address them, please don't hesitate to contact us.

-Stephen Duffy

Toyota's Troubles

In our automotive research experience, we’ve learned that just as Volvo is associated with “safety” and Mercedes-Benz with “luxury,” the Toyota brand carries incredibly strong connotations with “reliability.” Furthermore, many consumers agree Toyota’s sterling reputation for trouble-free ownership is worth a premium over other more “stylish” or performance-oriented brands.

Now, Toyota’s reputation for dependability is under siege. And from our perspective, the company mas made some crucial mistakes in addressing consumer anxiety.

In Jury Impact President Chris St. Hilaire’s upcoming book, The 27 Powers of Persuasion, three chapters specifically apply to Toyota’s current situation:

*Go on the Offensive
*Take Responsibility—It Will Be Assigned Anyway
*Release Bad News—All of It—Quickly

One of the most essential elements of any messaging campaign is going on the offensive. Whether presenting at trial, selling a product, or addressing public relations nightmares, we always stress to our clients the importance of going on the offensive. Toyota, on the other hand, seemed until recently to be taking a reactive approach to criticisms.

In September 2009, after concerns surfaced about accelerators sticking under floor mats, causing four deaths, Toyota recalled 3.8 million autos (this followed a 55,000-vehicle recall in 2007 for the same issue).

The first apology from CEO Akio Toyoda, when he reassured the public “we guarantee [our customers’] safety,” was on January 29 of this year. That four-month delay is hardly going on the offensive.

From a PR perspective, Toyota has seemed content trying to isolate its issues to a few specific models and fighting fires only as they flare up. Specifically, since the floor mat and sticky accelerator issues surfaced, a Toyota Prius and Lexus HS250h recall has been issued related to faulty brakes, and reports are now surfacing about steering problems with Corollas. Making matters worse, Toyota now admits it was fully aware of these braking problems yet chose not to issue a fix or recall.

This failure to act (including an early refusal to fix accelerators already at the dealership because, according to its U.S. Safety spokesperson, “Toyota continues selling models involved in the recall, expecting that they work fine because they are new and the throttles don't seem to begin sticking until the vehicle ages”) has led to yet another PR-horror show as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation. Toyota’s piecemeal approach to revealing problems it was well aware of has drawn out what could have been one really bad news week into a months-long cascade of bad press.

This stresses the importance of releasing bad news—all of it—quickly. Toyota’s reactive, after-the-fact strategy for addressing problems puts the company at a disadvantage for several reasons: 1) It is spending too much time responding to new criticisms to get ahead of the bad news, 2) waiting for the attacks to come in before addressing known issues makes the company seem defensive instead of preemptive, and 3) there is a growing perception Toyota is are not proactively monitoring vehicle safety, and only addressing things for which it is “caught in the act.”

By waiting too long to go on the offensive, being slow to address new concerns, and failing to put all of the bad news on the table at once, Toyota has allowed the media to control the message, resulting in public relations nightmare and a piling-on effect.

In a February 9 Washington Post op-ed, Toyoda explained what the company is doing to prevent issues like these from arising in the future, specifically a "top-to-bottom review" of Toyota's global operations. That’s great news, but a bit late. This apology, in which he concedes Toyota needs to investigate consumer complaints more quickly, comes after months of failing to investigate consumer complaints more quickly.

However, the company should be credited for finally taking responsibility. Some would say it’s a bold move, but based on our experience, responsibility will be assigned anyway—so if you’re aware of problems, it’s always better to admit mistakes as early as possible.

Which brings us to another crucial element to a successful communication campaign: presenting a cohesive, consistent message. Instead of creating new messages for each new problem, from early on Toyota could have been playing to longstanding predispositions about its product quality and presented a broad message to address the safety and reliability of the larger brand.

Consumers don’t care which models have steering issues, which are prone to floor mats jamming under the gas pedal, the parts supplier responsible for faulty pedals, or the intricacies of the dealership and factory fixes—they just want to be reassured the car they’re driving is safe. And that’s the big picture message that seems to only be coming out now in recent mea culpas, press releases, and television ads.

Considering Toyota lost $21 billion in market share in just one week, these blunders clearly aren’t minor. Instead, they highlight the consequences of failing to go on the offensive with a cohesive, consistent message. However, they will have fresh opportunities to apply these messaging principles, as CNN reports the lawsuits have already started in earnest.

We hope that Honda, which just issued a major recall related to airbags, will learn from Toyota’s missteps.

-Todd Fairbanks

Board Certification

During a recent focus group involving hospital credentialing, 18 of 24 jurors said they believe doctors must be board certified to practice medicine.

Based on the frequency of similar responses, we began surveying on the issue last year during groups involving medical malpractice. So far we’ve asked 487 jurors: “Do you think your primary care doctor is board certified?”

Of those polled, 18.9% said “I don’t know” and an astounding 80.3% said “yes.” Perhaps most telling is that only four out of 487 said “no.”

This means that a vast majority of jurors from all regions, backgrounds, ethnicities, genders and incomes assume their doctor is board certified. Our experience tells us this confusion results from an assumption that board certification and medical licensing are one and the same.

Naturally, the question arises: if a doctor involved in a lawsuit is not board certified, how do you discuss the issue? Conversely, if a doctor is board certified, how do you use juror predispositions to your advantage?

Second question first – when doctors are board certified, you need to talk about it. Play to juror predispositions and highlight doctor education, training, experience, as well as the dedication it takes to pass board exams and establish oneself in a specialty. By playing to juror perceptions that doctors should be board certified (whether actually required or not), you establish and bolster their credibility.

Now to the tougher question where there’s no easy answer. When trying a case involving a doctor who is not board certified, you must recognize that jurors are going to perceive it as a net negative. We have tested many ways to address this issue during research, with limited success.

With that said, a lack of board certification makes contextualizing the rest of the doctor’s experience all the more important. We suggest spending considerable time talking about the education they do have, including the number of surgeries or other relevant procedures performed, specific qualifications, fellowships completed, and other credentials. Highlighting that experience can somewhat mitigate the negative biases seen in the above juror statistic.

During the coming year, we’re adding new questions to our Depth Charts to provide you with more quantitative data. If you have any suggestions for juror questions or things you’d like to know specifically, let us know. We’d love to hear them.

-Todd Fairbanks

Things That Make You Go Hmmm...

Thinking about the 12 Days of Christmas reminds us of one of the most effective argument strategies we see: Use a couple of numbers.

Magazines are well aware of this approach. Just look at the monthly covers trumpeting lists such as “Top 100 colleges,” “400 richest Americans,” and the women’s magazine classic, “Seven Ways to Please Your Man!”

Recently we watched jurors deliberate a case in which a doctor failed to diagnose an extremely rare disease in an obese patient. The patient’s presenting symptoms: moderate muscle pain and high blood pressure. The doctor assumed a pulled muscle and too many Big Macs, and said to come back if the pain persisted. The true pain source turned out to be an extremely rare, deadly bacteria.

During discussions, plaintiff-leaning jurors zeroed in on the prevailing predisposition that “doctors are rushed and don’t spend enough time with patients.” Unfortunately, the initial pushback by defense-leaning jurors was weak: “Doctors can’t always diagnose these rare conditions right away.” The problem here was that plaintiff jurors simply could not understand just how little information the patient’s symptoms provided the doctor.

Adding a number helped change this. Jurors were introduced to some statistics: There are approximately 5,100 potential diagnoses for the combined symptoms of pain and high blood pressure. During deliberations, the defense-leaning jurors effectively adopted this number as their theme and supported it with another number: The disease occurs in no more than one in every 305,000 people.

Happy holidays and the very best wishes for the New Year.