Archive for the ‘Visual Evidence’ Category
We love Pew Research and their work on cataloguing how society here in the United States changes slowly or quickly (as the case may be) over time. A review of their hard work gives you a sense of what changes are underway in our now constantly changing “new normal”. They have published a lot in 2016 to help us understand how our potential jurors are changing. Take a look at just a few of the sixteen stories they deem “striking” from 2016. We’re telling the Pew story with their own pictures. Go to the site itself to read the details. [The spacing on this post is beyond us so please scroll…thanks!]
Significant demographic changes in America have reshaped our major political parties—our political parties look very different now than they did during the George W. Bush presidency.
And voters are divided on where the country is headed as well as whether that direction is better or worse.
Millennials are now the largest generation of living Americans (bigger than Boomers)
And more of the Millennials live with their parents than ever seen with young people before (although it should be noted that this trend has been growing for years now and it is not a Millennial “thing”).
Along with generational shifts, we are also seeing increased racial tensions with about four-in-ten blacks (43%) being skeptical that America will ever make the changes needed for blacks to achieve equal rights with whites.
And we are wary of what new technologies will mean for our lives.
The Pew summary of the 16 most striking findings in their surveys published in 2016 is fascinating reading if you want to know (as most of us do) how the country is changing and what that may mean for our potential jurors. There is more division and demographic change than we’ve seen in some time and it will most likely play a significant role in how your case is heard by jurors.
Take a look at Pew’s end of year summary and update yourself on how things stand now on a wide variety of subjects that may be part of your own up coming case narratives.
Images taken from Pew site
As Editor of The Jury Expert since 2008, I’m happy to share the table of contents of our new Winter 2016 issue! As always, The Jury Expert is brought to you free of charge by the excellent trial consultants who write for us and by the academic researchers who take their time to summarize their research and share it so we can use it in our day-to-day work for litigation advocacy.
Richard Gabriel takes a close look at the new television show ‘Bull’ and muses about how the show does and does not represent reality as well as how it may affect perceptions of the justice system by potential jurors (who do watch TV).
Stepping back, Richard Gabriel teaches us how television shows (like ‘Bull’ but certainly not limited to ‘Bull’) can help us craft more effective courtroom narratives.
Rebecca Valez, Tess M.S. Neal, and Margaret Bull Kovera team up to offer a primer on persuasion. What modes of persuasion will work best in the testimony of your expert witness? Then we have trial consultant responses from Jennifer Cox and Stan Brodsky, John Gilleland, and Elaine Lewis and a final reply from the authors.
Jason Barnes succinctly tells us how graphics can result in your words telling a much more effective story–even doubling comprehension of the listener.
Andrew Luttrell offers this intriguing strategy (based on his research) to make attitudes stronger and more influential. Trial consultants Sonia Chopra and Charli Morris react to his work with commentary on how they would use this research in day-to-day litigation advocacy.
They are always present and always silent. But what is going on in the minds of those dutiful court reporters as they type everything said in cases ranging from the mundane to the traumatizing? Claire E. Moore, Stanley L. Brodsky, and David Sams talk to court reporters and share their perspectives and coping strategies.
Mykol Hamilton and Kate Zephyrhawke share how to uncover bias in change of venue surveys in criminal cases by using alternate wording for time-honored questions that result in very different answers (and higher bias).
Image is The Jury Expert logo
We’ve written about CRISPR (aka gene editing) before and even about concerns of Americans about use of emerging technologies, and while this post is sort of about CRISPR—it is also about visual evidence done right.
We often work on cases where jurors will need to understand very complex information. It may be a patent case or a complex business litigation case or something else that is technically daunting—but jurors often need to understand something very complicated. And often that something is very technologically advanced (and thus intimidating to the jurors).
It is almost always a very difficult process for the attorneys in a complex case (in which they have often been buried for years) to see through the many details of a complicated technology and tell a simple (yet accurate) story for jurors. We often test visual evidence in our pretrial research to see what resonates with jurors, what they remember, and what helps them to make sense of abstract and esoteric technology, processes, or patented ideas.
When we see terrific examples of visual evidence (culled from many different areas) we like to share them here to help you understand there really is a way to take very, very complex facts and details and make them accessible to those who have no experience whatsoever in the area and may be very intimidated by even attempting to understand the information.
Here is just such a video tutorial. This video uses cartoon images and plain language to explain the gene editing technique referred to as CRISPR. While the last parts of the video place it clearly in the pro-CRISPR camp, the first parts explain the technology clearly and succinctly. Because it is in a cartoon format (with which we are all familiar from childhood) it is non-threatening. Since it is visually presented, we are able to understand a tremendous amount of technical information without jargon or numbers that make less technical viewers’ eyes glaze over.
If CRISPR can be explained in a few minutes of cartoons, you can explain anything in ways the most naïve juror can understand. All you need is a fabulous visual evidence consultant. We happen to know a few of them!
New research tells us you may not want to have slow motion videos played at trial if you are the defense attorney. However, if you are the prosecutor—push hard for that video! It’s really a simple lesson: when jurors see slowed down footage of an event, they are more likely to think the person on the screen has acted deliberately (and that will likely mean a more severe sentence and/or verdict).
The researchers say that while the slowed down footage does give the observer better ability to see what happened clearly, it also creates a “false impression that the actor had more time to premeditate” then when the events are viewed in real-time. Their experiments show (among other things) that jurors seeing a crime as calculated rather than impulsive can mean the difference between a “lethal injection and a lesser sentence”. That’s a profound impact from a video.
In a series of experiments, the researchers showed participants a video of an attempted armed robbery where the shop employee was shot and killed. When participants watched the video slowed down, they were 3x more likely to convict the defendant than those who watched the video in real-time.
The researchers reference the trial of John Lewis (still on death row for murdering a police officer in 2007) and the slowed down video used at his trial. Defense attorneys argued on appeal that the slowed down video evidence at his trial made jurors think his actions were premeditated, but prosecutors said since both regular speed and slowed down video were played—jurors were not confused. The judges sided with the prosecutors.
In this set of experiments, researchers tested the notion by showing participants both a real-time speed video and the slowed down version. What they found was that “slow motion replay, compared with regular speed replay, produces systematic differences in judgments of intent”. And, said the researchers, showing both regular speed and slow motion video was “somewhat, albeit not completely, effective in reducing the impact of slow motion on first-degree murder convictions”. In other words, showing both versions does not entirely mitigate the bias introduced by the slow-motion version.
We have all had the experience of watching an action movie in which car crash or a fight is filmed in slow motion. We watch and think to ourselves “Oh no! Slow down!” before the crash. The slow motion allows us to imagine escape alternatives even while we see the events unfold before us. Showing a shooting in slow motion offers the same sense of “Don’t do it!” and alternatives to the bad outcome that don’t occur in real-time.
The researchers see this as a question of whether and under what conditions slow motion video should even be allowed in court and think it imperative that the benefits be weighed against potential costs. Their results, they say, support the idea that slow-motion videos appear to influence observers in a more punitive way than real-time speed. Showing both speeds—mitigates to a degree but not entirely (so the slow-motion still has a chilling effect on juror emotions and decisions).
From a litigation advocacy perspective, this is a reference you may want to tuck away to support a motion to not allow slow motion videos to be shown at a trial where you are defense counsel. Slow motion video is most likely to be found desirable by a prosecutor or plaintiff. While it will certainly be a strategy prosecutors will want to employ (to increase the sense of premeditation and intentionality in jurors observing the video), this article was designed to test the decisions made in the John Lewis appeal and could be found persuasive to judges.
Caruso, E., Burns, Z., & Converse, B. (2016). Slow motion increases perceived intent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1603865113
Last week we published a new post on terrific visual evidence from the political arena that quickly and visually described complex (and huge) data sets. This week (and no, this will not be a regular weekly feature) we mine another (and perhaps unexpected) data source: Twitter. While you may have seen Jimmy Kimmel having movie stars read mean tweets about themselves—this visualization of American intolerance is much less amusing.
Although we are based in Texas (claiming the #3 slot in terms of American derogatory tweets), we travel all over the country doing pretrial research. As we prepare for that travel, we always investigate the demographic data of a planned venue so we can recruit a sample of mock jurors that reflect the community in which we are doing research. We look at online versions of local newspapers to get a sense of what residents have been reading about, talking about, or experiencing first-hand that might have relevance to our case. And sometimes, depending on the case specifics, we do a lot more research than usual to identify themes we might hear from mock jurors that can be instructive for us as we write up reports. However, prior to seeing the information we are about to share with you, we have not done Twitter research. From now on, we might need to add that to the list.
Imagine that you are working on a case that involves litigants that are minorities, or issues about social justice, or immigrants. You want to have a sense of the biases present in the area—where you can find representative opinions about your clients or the other party. You might want to understand the prevalence of biases and their social acceptability within the venue. Are slurs against black people, slurs against Hispanics or Latinos, slurs against women, slurs against the cognitively disabled, slurs against those who are overweight, or just plain nastiness and incivility in general something that people feel able to express openly? How can you know? You guessed it. Twitter.
The results can be found on Twitter, courtesy of the geotagging function in Twitter which allows you to “map” hate speech. The mining was done by a residential search engine site (Adobo) so that people looking for a new place to live can either steer clear of localities or get a higher chance of having a next-door neighbor who shares a particular favorite form of bigotry. It could also, though, be a simple place to take a look at how biases (aka online hate speech) will interact with your specific case facts.
Some of the maps do not fit with our stereotypes of various states—take for example the least bigoted states: Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, South Dakota, Idaho, Arkansas, Minnesota, Maine, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Some of these states are often seen as having many people in them who are very bigoted and yet, there is no mention of them on Adobo’s data visualization maps as being exceptionally bigoted states. And therein lies the issue. Some areas of the country, especially rural areas, don’t tweet nearly as much as others.
Twitter participation is relatively rare among adults on the internet (only about 23% of all online adults according to Pew Research Center). So these maps geotagging hate speech may not be representative of all your neighbors (we’re talking about the 77% of online adults who are not on Twitter). When we evaluate barriers to evidence-based jury decision-making, understanding the prevalent social attitudes is crucial. So, often these Twitter maps are not accurate enough by themselves—but they are a small window into potentially big problems. And that was the goal for Adobo in publishing the results. Go see the rest for yourself. It’s eye-opening and disheartening with only a few brighter spots.