By Melissa M. Gomez
Special to the Legal
I was working with the plaintiff on a motorcycle accident death case. While the defendant's liability was pretty clear, we had a problem. The decedent's blood alcohol level was beyond the legal limit. My client, needless to say, was concerned. How could he get jurors to disregard or not focus on the blood alcohol level when telling the story of what happened? My answer: "You can't."
In cases like this, trying to avoid or ignore the visceral reaction that jurors will naturally have is a hard sell. In fact, either trying to tell jurors that something they find critical is not important or failing to account for how they will naturally feel could very well cause them to close themselves off to anything else you have to say. Instead, it is more helpful to join jurors in the natural reaction. Go where they are and then help them see a different perspective from that vantage point.
In the motorcycle accident case, without getting into too many gruesome details, the blood sample had to be taken from a body that was not quite in one piece. Also, for the level to have read as high as it did, the decedent, who had been on the road for about two hours, would have had to have consumed so much alcohol before he got on his bike, that there is absolutely no way he would have been able to stand, let alone ride a motorcycle without incident for two hours on a busy highway. The test results, while powerful for the defense, didn't match up to the story. What I advised counsel to do was to say something like this:
"When I first heard about the case, and learned about Mr. X's blood alcohol reading, I thought to myself: 'An elevated blood alcohol level? Drunk driver! Case closed!'"
This joins with the visceral reaction and gets folks nodding.
"But, ladies and gentlemen, we are here in court for a reason. That reason is because, as I looked more closely at the case, and saw the evidence that you will see and you will hear, something didn't seem quite right. When I looked more closely, I realized that science is only exact when it is performed exactly right..."
By joining the jurors' natural reaction instead of coming out of the box and saying "it doesn't matter" or "it is wrong," this client got jurors to listen instead of put up a wall. While the case did settle before the end of trial, interviews with the jurors revealed that the approach had worked. Jurors agreed that they could not rely on the blood alcohol test and were leaning favorably toward the plaintiff's side of the case.
Melissa M. Gomez, Ph.D. is a jury consultant and owner of MMG Jury Consulting LLC (www.mmgjury.com). She holds a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. Her experience includes work on more than 100 jury trials in Philadelphia and across the country, with a focus on the psychology of juror learning, behavior and decision-making. She has more than a decade of expertise in research design and methodology, as well as in behavioral and communication skills training.
If you have any questions regarding jury psychology that you would like to see addressed in this blog, please contact Dr. Gomez at [email protected] or call 215-292-7956.
This posting is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as advice specific to any matter. Each case is different and no strategy applies uniformly to all.
Special to the Legal
I was working with the plaintiff on a motorcycle accident death case. While the defendant's liability was pretty clear, we had a problem. The decedent's blood alcohol level was beyond the legal limit. My client, needless to say, was concerned. How could he get jurors to disregard or not focus on the blood alcohol level when telling the story of what happened? My answer: "You can't."
In cases like this, trying to avoid or ignore the visceral reaction that jurors will naturally have is a hard sell. In fact, either trying to tell jurors that something they find critical is not important or failing to account for how they will naturally feel could very well cause them to close themselves off to anything else you have to say. Instead, it is more helpful to join jurors in the natural reaction. Go where they are and then help them see a different perspective from that vantage point.
In the motorcycle accident case, without getting into too many gruesome details, the blood sample had to be taken from a body that was not quite in one piece. Also, for the level to have read as high as it did, the decedent, who had been on the road for about two hours, would have had to have consumed so much alcohol before he got on his bike, that there is absolutely no way he would have been able to stand, let alone ride a motorcycle without incident for two hours on a busy highway. The test results, while powerful for the defense, didn't match up to the story. What I advised counsel to do was to say something like this:
"When I first heard about the case, and learned about Mr. X's blood alcohol reading, I thought to myself: 'An elevated blood alcohol level? Drunk driver! Case closed!'"
This joins with the visceral reaction and gets folks nodding.
"But, ladies and gentlemen, we are here in court for a reason. That reason is because, as I looked more closely at the case, and saw the evidence that you will see and you will hear, something didn't seem quite right. When I looked more closely, I realized that science is only exact when it is performed exactly right..."
By joining the jurors' natural reaction instead of coming out of the box and saying "it doesn't matter" or "it is wrong," this client got jurors to listen instead of put up a wall. While the case did settle before the end of trial, interviews with the jurors revealed that the approach had worked. Jurors agreed that they could not rely on the blood alcohol test and were leaning favorably toward the plaintiff's side of the case.
Melissa M. Gomez, Ph.D. is a jury consultant and owner of MMG Jury Consulting LLC (www.mmgjury.com). She holds a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. Her experience includes work on more than 100 jury trials in Philadelphia and across the country, with a focus on the psychology of juror learning, behavior and decision-making. She has more than a decade of expertise in research design and methodology, as well as in behavioral and communication skills training.
If you have any questions regarding jury psychology that you would like to see addressed in this blog, please contact Dr. Gomez at [email protected] or call 215-292-7956.
This posting is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as advice specific to any matter. Each case is different and no strategy applies uniformly to all.
Comments