Defendants "Stick Together"

As many of you know, we conduct research in some pretty tough jurisdictions.  Some jury pools are more skeptical than others, more conspiracy minded or more amenable to sympathy, but we have found a common thread across the nation is the perception among many disparate jury pools that medical caregivers cover up for their co-workers when there is a bad outcome.

Due to the frequency with which we encountered this predisposition during focus groups and mock trials, we added a question to a recent national survey of 400 participants.  The responses – with nearly 57 percent believing caregivers “always” or “frequently” engage in this behavior – demonstrate jurors are even more conspiracy minded than previously anticipated.

The “cover-up” preload doesn’t stop at hospitals.  As we have focused more on examining this widespread perception during research, whether discussing police officers, a school district or managers at a meatpacking plant, during focus groups jurors consistently believe there is a tendency for defendants to “stick together” when things go south.

So how do you combat this?  We tell clients it’s important to understand the difficulty in fully overcoming this widespread predisposition, and that in most cases you need to acknowledge it up front with jurors.  Even if you don’t anticipate opposing counsel will make direct accusations of cover-ups, jurors will likely walk in with the mindset that caregivers – especially in the context of them being defendants in a lawsuit – often cover for each other. Any opportunity to introduce third-party credibility, demonstrate that certain witnesses are no longer employed there and thus have no motivation to lie, or refer to national or state standards can be beneficial in mitigating cover-up suspicions.

For more advice on how to mitigate this perception for one of your cases, please call us at 714.754.1010 for a consultation.

Life is eternal – at least when it comes to our consultations

When we state in our proposals that focus group and mock trials include consultation for the life of the case, we mean it.  Our clients have told us this is one of our best selling points, and one that we may not emphasize enough.

Whether it’s been five days, five weeks or five years since we conducted research with you, we are happy to provide further analysis of any new data or fact that has come your way in the interim (for example, a defendant has settled out or a crucial piece of  evidence has been excluded), or produce a list of potential jury selection questions if trial has finally been set.  We do this because we care – we take a strong personal interest in each of our cases and oftentimes years after a focus group can still recite details of a key deposition or recall the language that  switched jurors to your side.

If you have worked with us before and would like to talk through previous research with us, contact us anytime.  

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.

Advance Your Case With Advanced Technology

Many jurors could believe attorneys are riding to the courthouse by horse and buggy, judging by the antiquated technology some counsel trot out during trial.

Some lawyers worry technology can intimidate jurors or look too flashy, especially if it’s clear a corporate client is footing the bill.  But during the past seven years of juror exit interviews, with literally hundreds of jurors interviewed post-trial, not a single one has ever complained about excessive technology use.

Even in the most rural or economically troubled jurisdictions, television and movies shape juror expectations of what goes on at trial and the kinds of technology lawyers use.  This means that when lawyers use overhead transparencies rather than TrialMax, jurors believe lawyers are doing their clients a disservice by trying to advance an old-fashioned, “good ol’ boy” shtick rather than using tools that will best aid jurors’ understanding of the case.

Earlier this year, we observed a pair of Midwestern plaintiff attorneys apologize for not having the defense’s “fancy computers” and instead use transparencies and enlarged copies of records slapped with paste onto one of those tri-fold, science fair-style boards.  These homespun displays contrasted sharply with their $20 million demand.

The jurors were not impressed.  One told us during an interview last week, “I haven’t seen transparencies used since I was in kindergarten, which was more decades ago than I’d like to admit.”  Rather than artificially trying to come across “like us simple folk,” the juror added, the attorneys should have capitalized on the available technology and potentially improved perceptions of the merits of their case.

“Every time there was a record to show, the defense could pull it right up and enlarge it,” the juror told us.  “The defense clearly had nothing to hide.”

Rather than resist technology, we strongly suggest using it to your advantage.  Jurors will appreciate your seamless presentations, and you’ll give your case a professional edge.  And unlike the attorneys in the aforementioned trial, you won’t have to risk your pride by tripping over your thicket of posterboards.

To discuss potential ways to use technology during your next trial, as well as how we can help test your audiovisuals’ effectiveness before you get to the courtroom using our sister company’s smartphone survey app, please email us at cluna@juryimpact.net or call 714.754.1010.

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.

Common Sense May Not Be So Common

When working up cases for focus group research, we sometimes encounter trial teams inclined to skip testing a certain lawsuit because the key issues are “obvious” or “common sense.”  But in research around the country, we’ve learned a funny thing about common sense – there’s really no such thing.

Just like we suggest to witnesses that they never use the word “assume,” we’ve learned not to use that word ourselves.  We believe you always need to test your assumptions – no matter how basic they seem – before taking your case before jurors.  Although you or I may believe something to be common sense, a lay juror with a different background may view things very differently.

For example, our clients include a lot of top hospitals with sterling reputations, which on the surface seems like it could only be a positive in the context of a jury trial.  But research has shown us time and again that a top hospital’s excellent reputation can heighten juror expectations for care and outcomes and cause them to be more critical of caregivers because they hold the hospital to a “higher standard.”

In fact, 49 percent of respondents in a recent national survey we conducted "somewhat" or "completely" agreed they would hold top hospitals to a different, higher standard than other hospitals when evaluating a medical malpractice claim.  These jurors’ “common sense” is much different than yours or ours.

Top hospitals should be held to a higher standard than other hospitals when looking at a medical malpractice claim.

Similarly, what might seem like a given to a juror in a big city could strike a rural juror quite differently.  We conducted focus groups for a case where a surgeon brought a handgun to work at a rural hospital in the South.  Along with the attorneys, we anticipated jurors would be shocked by a gun in a hospital environment, but many of them insisted this doctor was simply exercising her Second Amendment rights and it had no bearing on the case.

Here are some other ways we’ve seen “common sense” turn out to be not so obvious during case research:

• You might think jurors would hold a hospital responsible for the suicide of a patient in a locked mental ward, but many in a conservative Midwest jurisdiction in fact believed it wasn’t the hospital’s fault because people intent on committing suicide will “find a way.”

• We suspected that if a pregnant woman smokes, jurors would blame the mother’s behavior for negative outcomes with the baby.  What we actually found during focus groups is that many jurors – particularly in less affluent jurisdictions – believe this known pregnancy risk elevates expectations for caregivers.

• Public opinion polls consistently told us most people have unfavorable impressions of health insurance companies, but focus group research showed participants have fairly high opinions of their own insurers – it’s the industry as a whole they don’t like.

​Keep these in mind as you prepare your next case for trial.  What may seem like common sense to you could strike your jurors quite differently – and only by doing research can you find out what your jurors are actually likely to think.  Contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net to find out how we can help you avoid the common-sense pitfall.

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. 

Connect with Jurors Fast by Putting Your Best Foot Forward

Real estate agents know the first photo of a home for sale has to be an eye-catcher or the buyer will never get to selling points such as the granite countertops or nearby Blue Ribbon School.  A recent Wall Street Journal article found an astounding 95 percent of homebuyers viewing online listings looked at the first photo (typically of the home’s exterior) for 20 seconds – more than a third of the total average time spent looking at all photos – and after that their eyes tended to meander all over the screen with varying degrees of attention. 

By researching how homebuyers interact with Internet listings, real estate professionals are able to better understand the importance of leading off with the most effective photo to engage buyers.  This principle of putting your best foot forward applies to jury research as well.

Regardless of the product – real estate, new types of toothpaste or your side of the story in a civil trial – the article highlights the importance of first understanding how your audience will view your product (in a trial context, the key language, witnesses, themes and  arguments of the case), and then presenting your most compelling information up front to quickly connect with jurors.

For example, when we conduct witness preparation sessions one of the first steps is to get the witness talking about why they got into their line of work in the first place, and some of their most positive experiences.  Years ago, while an anxious witness was telling us about her nursing background, she mentioned as an aside that she was “hand-picked” by a doctor to be present during the deliveries of his own children – a compelling fact that might not have come up naturally during direct examination (and especially cross).

When our team pointed out the potential significance of this information to a jury – practically a throwaway line as far as she was concerned – she not only gained more confidence in her testimony, but it opened other avenues of questioning that led to her saying she got into nursing to “be there for that miracle” – a moving statement that came out organically and poignantly.

At trial, armed with newfound confidence and a mindful attorney who added these humanizing types of questions early during direct examination, this formerly nervous and reticent nurse was poised, confident and made an immediate – and extremely positive – impression on the jury.

Whether through conducting focus groups, surveys, witness preparation or online research, we always recommend taking steps to learn about the jurors in your particular jurisdiction, and uncover what they believe is your strongest, most sympathetic position.  Their candid feedback allows you to lead with the most effective themes and language to connect right away, and ultimately arm your advocates in the deliberation room.

If you have an upcoming case that could benefit from research, please feel free to call us at 714.754.1010 and we would be happy to discuss your goals and how our services can help you and your clients.

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.

Next-Generation Trial Research – Quickly Quantifying Crucial Aspects of Your Case

We’ve recently had several clients with fast-approaching trials who wanted real data, really quickly, about juror reactions to crucial aspects of their cases to assist in profiling their ideal – and less than ideal – jurors.  Using a proprietary survey technology developed by Jury Impact sister company M4 Research, we were able to provide these clients with fast, cost-effective, quantitative and statistically reliable answers. 

In our past research and trial experience, we have often found that jurors’ views about a case involving complicated issues and thousands of pages of documents ultimately come down to how they feel about one or two simple questions.  For some cases, when there simply isn’t time to do research or a key aspect of the case has changed since the focus groups or online survey, it makes sense to conduct basic quantitative research by putting those issues in front of a large panel of potential jurors.  

In the example below, we surveyed more than 4,000 jurors about a fundamentally important issue to a case – and had complete results within an hour.  

We not only provided topline results for how panelists answered the question, but we parsed the results demographically so the clients could see how different groups answered.  The breakdown: white and Asian-American jurors were the least likely to find the hospital responsible for the nurse’s actions, and African-American and Hispanic jurors were the most likely to hold the hospital accountable.

Results can also be broken down by education, income, age, gender, military service – and any other demographic variable incorporated into the survey.

We’ve used this quantitative survey approach several times so far, allowing clients to cost effectively poll thousands of potential jurors with up to three concise questions that give them a statistically reliable read on how trial jurors are likely to respond to important issues.

Consider how you might benefit from this type of research.  For example, you might want to know whether jurors find a crucial fact or theory in your case believable on its face or how they feel about a given situation.  Maybe trial is coming up and you need to know what type of juror demographics are most or least likely to believe a medical procedure consent form insulates a hospital from liability for a complication.  You can even field a question while trial is in progress to figure out how jurors might react to a new, unforeseen issue.

Examples of the types of questions you can ask jurors:

• Rank competing themes or language you are considering using for opening/closing
• Find out how a co-defendant being dropped might impact the case
• Assess factors affecting damages, such as whether jurors believe a disabled plaintiff will be able to work, or will need 24-hour care
• Weigh competing theories to find out which one jurors find more believable
• Find out how jurors might view a crucial admission by a witness – we can even play a brief video clip of the witness’ deposition to test credibility

Contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net for a price quote or a demonstration of how to use quantitative research. 

If you need a more thorough assessment of your entire case rather than just certain isolated elements, we also offer live or online focus groups that let you test out key themes, arguments, evidence and witnesses.  Let us know if you’d like a free 30-minute webinar demonstration of all our services.

* * *

Additionally…

We’re always advising our clients to humanize themselves, to even the playing field between the defense and the typically more sympathetic plaintiff.  We ran across a video this week produced by Cleveland Clinic called “Empathy: The Human Connection to Patient Care,” posted online in late February.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDDWvj_q-o8

The four-minute video follows several patients and hospital employees around the facility, capturing what they are going through in poignant phrases: a little girl “visiting dad for the last time,” a pensive woman waiting to learn more about the “something” on her mammogram, a pediatric nurse, who “always wanted a child on her own,” cheerfully waving to a discharged patient.  It’s a perfect example of a proactive marketing effort to share the Clinic’s
prioritization of empathy and patient care.

A warning: you might need tissues.

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. 

Fairness vs. The Law

Despite the hours attorneys spend arguing and refining jury instructions before and during trial, it turns out that more often than not, fairness matters more than the law to deliberating jurors.

A recent case in Los Angeles, a plaintiff-oriented jurisdiction by any measure, shows how this can play out in the courtroom. A tenant sued her landlord – Los Angeles Clippers owner and real-estate mogul Donald Sterling – over personal property destroyed in a fire. There were allegations of distasteful conduct by the apartment manager and employees after the fire, such as asking the tenant to pay the next month’s rent or face a report to a credit agency, and the plaintiff’s attorney developed a theme that all the landlord cared about was money.

While negligent, it's difficult to understand how jurors found this conduct rose to the extraordinarily high legal threshold required to award punitive damages, especially to the tune of $15 million.  The judge agreed – and has since overturned the December verdict.

Although there are likely many factors behind the award, including the defendant’s wealth and the nearly two-thirds of Angelinos who rent rather than own, the fact is jurors allowed their perceptions of what was “fair” and “right” to override specific court instructions about the burden for punitive damages, and awarded an amount nearly 50 percent higher than what the plaintiff’s lawyer requested. 

In a recent national survey we conducted of 409 participants, more than 40 percent flat-out admitted their sense of fairness, rather than the law, would guide their decisions.

So even if you believe the facts are strongly on your side, how do you approach this juror propensity to ignore the law in favor of their version of “fairness”?

First, understanding this widespread predisposition can help you and your team evaluate whether or not to take a case to trial in the first place.  If you have a case where jurors are likely to seek justice for the plaintiff – regardless of the plaintiff’s ability to prove their case – the exposure could quickly escalate once it makes its way into the jury’s hands.
 

Second, once at trial it is important not to assume a judge’s (sometimes lengthy and confusing) instructions will be enough.  In addition to arming defense-minded jurors with reminders about a jury’s obligations under the law, we believe counsel should acknowledge the juror potential to gravitate toward fairness and play to this by telling the defense’s story from the perspective of fairness.

If you have an upcoming case that you would like to discuss, please don’t hesitate to call us at 714.754.1010.
 

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 aspects 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 on 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.