A post at PsyBlog says we can’t help but believe what we read. At least at first glance. We simply take in new information and accept it uncritically. Then we assess the information for validity—IF we take the time to think. Without thinking (or reflection) we simply believe what we read. And probably what we hear as well.

While we apparently want to believe, we want even more to avoid being deceived.  When you are presenting your case to a jury, you want to avoid distorting the truth. If the jury hears your story and accepts it and then learns you misrepresented the facts, you lost credibility. In our mock jury research we often see responses like:

“I was really for the plaintiff until I heard from the defense. Why did the plaintiff lie? Now I don’t know who to believe.”

Just as we resent friends and acquaintances who lie to us and we feel betrayed when lied to by those who say they love us—jurors take being deceived by litigators a grave betrayal. They take their role very seriously. They are there to pass judgment on your case; if they perceive that you have lied to them you will experience their judgment of you.  Once you lose your credibility, you don’t get it back. There is simply not time in the space of a trial to regain the jurors’ trust.

The “McDonald’s Coffee” case is not merely a lawsuit, it is now urban legend.  I have never met a juror who knows more than the sound-bite “Old lady spills coffee on herself and sues for millions”.  You have enough on your hands to try to re-educate them about the case, so what do you make of it?  Two things:  First, they believe the jurors were stupid enough to buy a load of nonsense from a lawyer; the case was frivolous.  Second, the jurors never, ever want anyone to think that they are as dumb or naïve as those on the McDonald’s case.

Any hint or suspicion on the part of jurors that you have betrayed their trust will flip a credibility switch that is unlikely be reversed.

Related posts:

1. Simple Jury Persuasion: Avoid ‘oops you did it again’ errors
2. Your brain is a liar: It will find what it wants before it even starts looking
3. Why didn’t they get a second opinion?
4. Inviting jurors to actually ‘speak the truth’ in voir dire (and why they often don’t)

1. Doug Keene says:

   November 16, 2009 at 1:56 PM

   Tim,

   Your point is so true! When we do pre-trial focus groups I recommend to my clients that the most efficient use of time is to have the case facts and testimony presented in a narrative, but to also make brief cuts from the depositions of key witnesses and show them to the jurors. What I find is that in less than 5 minutes of observing a witness, the jurors have come to very firm opinions about the character of the person. If we have a problematic witness, an important part of trial strategy involves determining how to create an identity for the witness that allows him or her to be more warmly received.

   Thanks for your encouraging comments. I hope others add their experience and observations to the blog. We love writing it, and enjoy the dialogue with readers.

   Doug Keene
   Keene Trial Consulting
2. Timothy R. Hughes says:

   November 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM

   Douglas,
   You are so on the money on this post. I still remember paying a price on this one when during a trial, a witness came back from out of the area, testified and fell apart making factual admissions no one in the case had ever heard (and yes I grilled him before and prepped him, it was an epic fail).

   That McDonald’s case is another one that people have so much pre-judgment on. Their information has been so shaped without knowing the underlying facts, great example. As someone who handled a lot of insurance defense matters, I came in probably skeptical towards the plaintiff until I read more about the actual evidence, proof, and damages in that case.

   Keep up the good work!
   Timothy R. Hughes
   http://www.valanduseconstructionlaw.com
   @vaconstruction