ABA Journal Blawg 100!
We Participate In:
Archive for the ‘Generation or Age of Juror’ Category
Who knew we’d be such grumpy (but NOT old!) men and women?
You probably intuited this already but age is simply not settling well on our largest generation. From the exuberance of youth (“don’t trust anyone over 30”) to the contemplation of approaching 65—Boomers feel anxious about their futures. They are afraid they will outlive Medicare. But that isn’t all that is vexing the Boomers. A recent report published by the Pew Organization shows that Boomers are, in general, more downbeat than other age groups about the future of the nation as well as the anticipated trajectory of their own lives.
Compare the generational numbers for agreement with the following perspective:
“I am dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today”
Silent and Greatest Generations (65 and older): 76%
Boomers: 80%
Generation X (ages 30 to 45): 69%
Millennials (ages 18 to 29): 60%
We Boomers are simply glum. More glum—it should be pointed out—than our own parents.
We are the new ‘grumpy old men and women’. We have become ‘the man’ (sic). We are more likely to say we have been hurt financially by the current recession and more likely to say we are cutting back. We are less religious than our parents and more religious than our children. We still see ourselves as young with the average Boomer saying “old age begins at 72” but we have lost our optimism for the future.
One of our (Boomer) clients had a great line in a mock trial from this summer: “What has become of our country?” It resonated with the mock jurors. It would likely resonate with Boomers. And it is likely what our parents (the Silents and the Greatest Generation) thought when we were young adults.
So, what’s the point? The point is that we have to take a step back and see what is happening to our country as part of a natural process. Time passes. New generations emerge. Older generations step back. We Boomers do not like to step back. And while (we sure think) it isn’t yet time for us to step back completely—it is time for us to stop taking hammers to the hands of those attempting to climb the ladder behind us.
We’ve written about Millennials (aka Gen Y) extensively. (See our papers on generational characteristics and on effective management strategies for Millennial/Gen Y employees.) We do not pretend to understand them entirely. And there are certainly things to be concerned about in the country and in our financial futures. But spreading gloom and doom around us is not an effective way to live happily. Discouraging others from working hard and achieving simply because they are young is not a way to keep Medicare (or some form of health coverage) solvent. We were mentored as young people. And those mentors often shook their heads. It’s time for us to step up. Boomers as mentors. Not as grumpy old men and women.
D’Vera Cohn, & Paul Taylor (2010). Baby Boomers Approach 65 – Glumly. Pew Research Center
You’re not too old for a story (but you might be too young!)
The idea of using a narrative to tell your litigation story is so widely accepted it’s almost surprising someone would research the power of a story But Kenneth Chestek did just that with appellate professionals in his article recently uploaded to the SSRN network. And what he found is intriguing.
Chestek covers familiar ground in his hypothesis that using a story narrative to “weave a pathos-based appeal into a brief will produce a more persuasive document”. He asserts that this idea is almost true at trial but that judges are not in agreement as to whether briefs should tell a story as well. So Chestek sets out to measure the effect of story reasoning on a judge’s thought process.
“In early 2009, I conducted a study in an attempt to fill that gap. I wrote a series of test briefs in a hypothetical case and asked appellate judges, their law clerks, and appellate court staff attorneys, appellate lawyers, and law professors to rate the briefs as to how persuasive they were. My purpose (which I did not disclose to the test participants) was to measure whether a brief with a strong strand of story reasoning, woven in with the logos-based argument, would be more persuasive than a “pure logos” brief.” –page 8
Chestek gave his briefs (two were strictly factual and two were in story format) to appellate judges, appellate law clerks, appellate court staff attorneys, appellate practitioners, and law professors—95 participants in all. Chestek’s main finding is that, yes, the story form brief is persuasive. But more intriguing is how the persuasiveness of that brief varies by age and experience. In short, the longer you have been doing your job (i.e., the more experience you have at the appellate level) the more persuasive you find the story style brief.
Chestek explains that law clerks were the only group that did not express an overall preference for the story brief. Chestek hypothesizes that these ‘new’ professionals (with less than five years experience) prefer a focus on “the facts” to aid them in helping their supervisors (the judges) identify laws at issue. In other words, new professionals see the informational brief as one that more represents “thinking like a lawyer”.
“Perhaps it is because “the law” becomes familiar and the stories become the “new” information that is interesting and engages the attention of the reader. Or perhaps it is related to the fact that emotional reasoning (the “story strand” of our DNA molecule) evolved in the human brain long before logical reasoning. Perhaps as we mature, we learn to trust our emotional reasoning processes more.” (p 31)
What isn’t considered in his hypothesis is the generational difference that is well documented between Gen Y (the law clerks) and the Gen X/Baby Boomer lawyers and judges. We have written exhaustively on the subject, and can tell you that the difference between generations can explain the difference just as well. As a member of one of these older groups who reads hundreds of pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and appellate briefs every year, I know how much more I look forward to reading those written in story form. My kids would probably tell me that they wish the author would cut that stuff out and just explain what needs to be shared.
This gives credence to the old advice to “know your audience”. If you are speaking (or writing) to a professionally “newer” group, you may want to use a more stream-lined and factual approach. If your audience is more experienced, a story narrative may be both more interesting to them and more persuasive.
Chestek, K. (2010). Judging by the Numbers: An Empirical Study of the Power of Story. SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1649869
Chestek, K. (2010). Judging by the Numbers: An Empirical Study of the Power of Story
SSRN
Between Coddling and Contempt: Managing and Mentoring Millennials
The new issue of The Jury Expert is up and we have a second piece on Millennials in it!
When we wrote our original piece for the July 2010 issue: Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology, and TMI: Welcome to the land of the Millennials (aka Generation Y) there was simply too much information to cover both what we really know about the Millennial generation and what the research says about the work ethic and commitment of the Millennials. So we wrote this second piece to cover Millennials at work: Between Coddling and Contempt: Managing and Mentoring Millennials.
Once again, you’ll find a research-based presentation with (we hope!) a minimum of jargon to get in the way of practical application. We’ve covered what the research says and then take a look at what this means for both managers and Millennials themselves. We’ve made specific recommendations for both parties in the new workplace relationship and are open to hearing your comments and reactions either here or on The Jury Expert website.
As two Baby Boomers, it has been fascinating for us to see the parallels between our (admittedly hazy) recollections of our own initial entry to the workplace and the experience of Generation X and now that of Generation Y. It’s tough to see ourselves becoming [an improved version of] our own parents and that is what appears to be the position we Boomers find ourselves in. What is additionally intriguing is that we raised the Millennials. They are our children. We taught them to expect accommodation, to question authority, to challenge the status quo and to do what works for them. And now those birds have come home to roost. To paraphrase an old Jimmy Buffett song “they are the people we never warned ourselves about”. Or to paraphrase my mother when I said I wanted a strong-willed girl child—“I hope you get exactly what you wish for and then you will understand just how much fun that is!”.
Or to paraphrase some old wife somewhere—we made this bed…..
The Millennials (aka ‘Gen Y’): On tattoos, TMI, tolerance and technology
We have an article in this edition of The Jury Expert on the Millennials (aka ‘Generation Y’). There’s been a lot of information floated out there as fact that is simply observation, opinion, and (frankly) made up stuff. Pretty shocking, eh? As trial consultants and as parents of four Millennials between us, we wanted to collect what is actually known (based on data, evidence and surveys) about this emerging generation. I mean to say—is it possible that I could misunderstand my kids?
What we found was enough for two articles rather than one so you’ll have to wait until September for the next piece (Gen Y in the law firm and in the workplace in general). But you can see the first one, Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology, and TMI: Welcome to the land of the Millennials now.
We were taken aback when we found this article from 1990 at Time.com. This piece is written about Generation X but if you tilt your head just a bit when reading it you can see it is quite reminiscent of what we are now reading about Generation Y (the Millennials) and what we would have likely read back in the late 1960’s about the Baby Boomers. What goes around, comes around. We forget our own youth and immaturity and assume that those coming up behind us are less worthy than we were, have poor work ethics, poor hygiene, and bad values. The only difference is that now, when we write, it’s on the internet (courtesy of Web 2.0) and readily searchable, spreadable, and taken as ‘research’ rather than opinion. W.R. Eilers wrote a terrific blog post on this point back in May, 2010.
What we’ve done in our article on the Millennials is to collect what we really ‘know’ about this emerging generation so that you can know what is truly descriptive of them and what is not. (We include some of the ‘what is not’ as well, just to keep you on top of things!) What we found is captured (without much detail) in our paper’s title. But there’s a lot more to this generation than tattoos, technology, tolerance and TMI and we hope you’ll stop by and read the article and leave a comment to let us know what you think! As always, we make a particular point of what all this information means for you in the courtroom and in voir dire. After all, that’s what we do!
The new bumper sticker? Tattoos in the courtroom
We’ve blogged about tattoos before—looking at whether you can assess juror morality by counting tattoos and whether the location of a tattoo is meaningful (along with a cookbook photo of location and assigned interpretation).
Recently, however, a courtroom in Fresno, California has been dealing with a different issue: sentencing for two gang members who tattooed a 7-year-old boy with a gang icon. One of the two defendants is the boy’s father. Part of what has caught our interest in this story is the use of jury questionnaires where jurors are being asked if they have tattoos.
While this is sometimes done in death penalty cases, the idea of querying potential jurors about their tattoos is an interesting one. In the above case, jurors with tattoos could be useful information for either side of the case—gang sympathizers/members could be readily identified and every one with a tattoo would know the pain involved in being tattooed.
But what about privacy? Suppose I have tattoos I don’t want you to know about? While I doubt anyone will strip search jurors for body art examination—some jurors may not realize they do not have to disclose everything.
Tattoos can be artistic expression meant for public viewing or they can be meant to stay private and secretly enjoyed by oneself or a select few. As a trial consultant, I enjoy seeing people’s tattoos but I am intensely interested in seeing the tattoos you don’t want me to see. They give me secret information. Access to who you are privately and what biases you may bring in to the jury room with you. This is part of what I love about trial consulting. It lets me be a private detective. I learn things about what sorts of attitudes and experiences allow jurors to hear or result in them closing off their minds to information.
Sometimes though—access should be limited. When it is simply not my right to ‘see private tattoos’? Or other private beliefs and ideas? At what point do the parties rights to a fair trial interfere with the private citizen’s right to privacy? It’s an odd question for tattoos to raise but there you have it.
Recent Comments