Beyond the Verdict: Top Ten Jury Decision-Making Mysteries Revealed
Examines the jury decision-making process, offering insights leading to more effective persuasion and better results in the courtroom. The role and impact of judges on the jury decision-making process will also be addressed, along with trial-tested tips for both civil and criminal trial attorneys.
Alison Bennett presents a CLE on “New Strategies for Preparing Witnesses.” Alison discusses ways to improve witness preparation sessions by adding effective communication techniques. Learn tips to share with your witnesses to prevent guessing, over-advocating, and defensiveness, as well as ways to reduce their anxiety and apprehension.
Alison Bennett presents a CLE on “New Strategies for Preparing Witnesses.” Alison discusses ways to improve witness preparation sessions by adding effective communication techniques. Learn tips to share with your witnesses to prevent guessing, over-advocating, and defensiveness, as well as ways to reduce their anxiety and apprehension.
Alison Bennett presented a CLE on “New Strategies for Preparing Witnesses.” Alison discusses ways to improve witness preparation sessions by adding effective communication techniques. Learn tips to share with your witnesses to prevent guessing, over-advocating, and defensiveness, as well as ways to reduce their anxiety and apprehension.
Jury consultant Alison Bennett presented, “Strategies for the Modern Jury, ” at the SMU Law School lecture to Constitutional Law Class of Professor Meghan Ryan on February 26, 2013.
– September 30, 2012 Posted in: Bias, Case Preparation and Presentation, Litigation Advocacy
The future of law is standing on the courthouse steps. Neurolaw – the combination of neuroscience research and the law – is worthy of attention for a number of reasons. Neuroscientists are conducting ground-breaking research with a machine called a functional MRI, or fMRI, which is similar to traditional MRI technology but focuses on brain activity, not just structure. Some would argue the use of neuroscientific evidence based on fMRI research is a premature adoption of a novel technology, but neurolaw evidence is already influencing jury trials in the United States and abroad. Billions of dollars are being pored into interdisciplinary neuroscience research each year in the United States and abroad. While we cannot predict the point in time at which the intersection of technology and law will merge to create credible courtroom evidence, we can look to neurolaw research today for research findings that confirm current trial practice techniques and offer new insights into jury decision making and the art of persuasion.
In the United States, neuroscientific evidence has been admitted in over one hundred criminal trials now, has been cited in at least one U. S. Supreme Court case, and is being admitted as evidence in other countries as well. In many cases, neuroscientific evidence was offered to mitigate sentencing by presenting neuroimaging highlighting brain damage that could have diminished the perpetrator’s capacity and ability to make rational decisions. In one recent trial in Montgomery County, Maryland, Circuit Court Judge Eric M. Johnson allowed pretrial testimony about issues from the minutiae of brain analysis to the nature of truth and lies. After testimony by renowned experts in the field, Judge Johnson decided to keep the evidence out of trial, concluding the current lack of consensus among neuroscientists casts too much doubt on the results to present them as evidence to jurors. However, brain scan evidence was used in 2008, in Mumbai, India, to convict a woman of murder, along with circumstantial evidence. This conviction prompted strong criticism from bioethicists, who posit neurolaw research is still in its infancy, suggesting brain scan findings are not reliable at this point in time. Click Here To Read More
By Sylvia Hsieh
The Daily Record Newswire
BOSTON (Dolan Media) — During a recent med-mal trial in Pennsylvania against two doctors and a hospital over a birth injury, 12 people with similar attributes to the 12 jurors filed in and out of the observation area of the courtroom every time the actual jurors took a break during a recess, lunch break or sidebar conference. The 12 visitors were shadow jurors, chosen for their demographic similarities to the real jurors to give their detailed opinions about each day’s events to the trial lawyers.
The shadow jurors were not told — in fact great pains were taken to make sure they did not find out — which side of the dispute hired them.
Unbeknownst to the shadow jurors, the trial consultant who debriefed them each day was hired by the plaintiffs’ legal team.
“They didn’t know [for whom] they were working … but they were observing and giving feedback. Every day, they were debriefed during the lunch break, and we would receive feedback about what could be done better, how they evaluated each witness, and which defenses were stronger than others,” said Daniel Weinstock, the plaintiffs’ attorney.
Bloom Strategic Consulting uses mock courtrooms and “shadow juries” to help companies get ready.
For many C-level executives, the uncertain prospect of putting their company’s future in the hands of 12 strangers in a jury box is somewhat like walking into a casino with your hard-earned nest egg in hand. But what if you were walking in not with Lady Luck on your arm, but the equivalent of a card-counter?
Meet Jason Bloom and Alison Bennett of Bloom Strategic Consulting, consultants who take a scientific approach to evaluating how jurors are likely to react to a client’s case—including the evidence, theories, and witnesses.
“CEOs should ask if there is value to learning how a jury will react to the case before writing settlement checks or deciding to go to trial,” Bloom says. “Sometimes it makes economic sense to settle a case, but I’ve seen Fortune 100 companies settle for much less than they were willing to pay based on the results of mock jury testing.” Click here to read more
Using brain scans to evaluate motive and intent of the accused in court sounds like something straight out of a science fiction tale. Yet here it is in a courtroom near you. And this new technology is steadily moving closer to becoming a routine consideration in the business world too.
Brain scans produce very revealing data. Neuroscience, in essence, is perfecting the art of mind reading to an almost terrifying degree of accuracy. And businesses are already scrambling to use the results in as many ways as possible.
“Neuroscientific data has been admitted as evidence in over one hundred criminal trials now, and has been cited in at least one U. S. Supreme Court case,” says Alison K. Bennett, M.S., senior litigation consultant at Bloom Strategic Consulting, a firm that helps lawyers construct winning trial and litigation strategies.
The Supreme Court case to which she refers is Justice Breyer’s citation of neuroscience research in his videogame dissent in the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc. case. Breyer wrote, “[C]utting-edge neuroscience has shown that ‘virtual violence in video game playing results in those neural patterns that are considered characteristic for aggressive cognition and behavior.’” For that reason and others, Breyer thought that the legislators’ conclusion (that the videogames in question could harm children) should be upheld. Read more…
