This is really not a facetious question. Depending on your case facts and which side you are representing (plaintiff, prosecution, or defense)—you will do better to craft a case story that will either carefully think through the evidence or not think carefully and rely instead on pre-existing attitudes.

Jurors that carefully think through the evidence are generally highly motivated and become personally involved in the decision-making process. These jurors will engage in a more thoughtful and systematic review of the evidence and make their decisions based upon that.

Conversely, jurors that are not highly motivated and do not find case issues personally involving will sit back and use their own pre-existing attitudes and biases or use a ‘consensus equals correct’ model and therefore agree with the majority of other jurors (Wood 2000).

There will be times when you don’t want your jurors to think carefully—but rather, to simply go with their gut (i.e., their pre-existing beliefs) and make their decisions based on stereotypes. While this is often not a politically correct tactic, it is often a winning one.

To increase the likelihood that your jurors will not think carefully, try the following:

Suggest a ‘common sense’ approach to verdict-finding—jurors are more likely to gravitate to positions for which they can easily generate supportive agreements and to reject positions where they cannot easily generate those agreements

• Use familiar sayings (i.e., clichés) that provide cues to agreement
• “The apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree” to discredit by implying similarity between parents with poor histories and the defendant or plaintiff
• “Corporate misconduct” to evoke automatic negative reactions to corporate defendants
• “Money won’t bring their loved one back” to decrease tendencies to award large amounts

Reference unbiased, expert sources or, even better, sources with an apparent allegiance to the opposition

• “The Surgeon General says” or “Dr. Famous Expert says”
• “What is interesting is that the plaintiff’s own expert says…”

Suggest a ‘common sense’ approach to verdict-finding—jurors are more likely to gravitate to positions for which they can easily generate supportive agreements and to reject positions where they cannot easily generate those agreements

• “It just makes sense that the nurses would follow the same procedures they always use—just because they were so busy taking care of Mr. X and didn’t write it down doesn’t mean it wasn’t done…”
• “How much of a coincidence would it take and how many of these witnesses who have never met would have to be working together to make the defense story hold water? Let’s be reasonable…”

Suppose, however, you’re on the other side of the fence and you do want your jurors to think carefully, to process and sift through the evidence, and truly examine the facts as they come to a decision. What can you do? Social science research again provides multiple strategies for you:

Frame your messages in an unexpected format

• “Truth can be stranger than fiction…”
• “If only this hadn’t happened. But sometimes bad things do happen, sometimes they just do…”

Increase the self-relevance of your messages for jurors

• “This corporation is based here in our town. And how they do business effects all of us.”
• “Mr. Plaintiff/Defendant is/was a hard-working man with a family who loves/loved him. He got up every day just like all of us do…”

Use phrases that ambiguously signal broader values (e.g., “family values”)

• “This case isn’t just about Mrs. X—it’s really about being a mother and about being the kind of mother who doesn’t accept bad behavior from her children or toward her children. This is a case about the kind of mother we’d all be fortunate to have in our corner.”
• “This community expects better from our business owners. This community has shared values that say businesses should treat their customers fairly and that they should provide good service in return for payment.”

Overall, as part of your case strategy, you want to be thinking about whether you want your jurors to be thinking or simply acting. Depending on the facts of the case and on the good or bad facts regarding your client and your opposition—you will do better with either jurors that think or jurors that fall back on their own pre-existing beliefs and values.

Think and decide whether you want your jury to be composed of thinkers or impulsive actors.

A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices. –Edward R. Murrow (1908 – 1965)

Wood, W. (2000). “Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence.” Annual Review of Psychology 51: 539-570.

Related posts:

1. Predicting case outcomes? Lawyers are pretty dismal at it!
2. Voir Dire Strategy: Who’s the authoritarian?
3. What to do when your case is reduced to a country western song…
4. Propaganda, Dogmatism & Bias: Who are your jurors?
5. “Reactions vary along traditional partisan lines”