Why Impressions and Visuals Matter to a Jury: True Life Trial Tales
Many jurors make decisions based on their gut. Not the lawyer's eloquent and impassioned words. Not the damning exhibit or testimony. Not the razor-sharp cross examination. And that's where visuals can make the difference.
November 08, 2019 at 04:24 PM
4 minute read
A friend recently told me about when he was a juror on a civil trial regarding an unpaid invoice. His story made me shake my head. He said that at one point during the trial when the jury was sent back to the jury room, one of the jurors blurts out, "Well, I think he's guilty" referring to the plaintiff. The foreperson's response was that the plaintiff is the one suing and that this isn't the type of case where someone is guilty. The juror's retort was "I don't care" and that he still thinks "the guy is guilty."
The juror's complete misconception mirrors my own observations on three juries. During deliberations on one criminal case, a juror started crying about the defendant being set up. The first and only time anyone mentioned a set up was by defense counsel during closing arguments in an unsubstantiated throw-away comment. During deliberations on another criminal case, one of the jurors exclaimed, "I think he [the defendant] did it!" The foreperson explained that the jury has to decide if there is sufficient proof for each element one at a time.
Under the law, someone cannot just be "guilty" or have done "it" without consideration of the elements and proof. But, make no mistake, in the minds of many jurors, there is nothing else.
What does that mean? Simply put, many jurors make decisions based on their gut. Not the lawyer's eloquent and impassioned words. Not the damning exhibit or testimony. Not the razor-sharp cross examination. Not the jury instructions. It is a juror's gut feeling that can significantly influence their decision making.
One sure way to have an impact beyond words is to use visuals / demonstratives. Demonstratives can help the jurors believe what you say by seeing it. Now, don't get me wrong… I'm not saying visuals are more important than the presentation of law and facts in a case. But I am saying that visuals can increase the chance of eliciting a gut reaction. If done right, that gut reaction will be in your client's favor.
If you don't believe me, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that you have to make a presentation on New York Harbor's navigability in the 1800s. Picture in your mind what the harbor may have looked like with its ships. Now look at the two paintings of the Harbor from that era.
If your goal is to emphasize the ease of navigation, you would want to use the image above. Its soft tones and placid water elicit a feeling of calm and warmth.
On the other hand, if you wanted to leave your audience feeling the waterway is dangerous, you would select this painting. Its churning waters, high winds and slate-gray color scheme would generate a cold and foreboding feeling. The same scene shown differently elicits opposite visceral reactions.
How does this apply to litigation? We know that images can change how words are interpreted. Litigators should harness the finder of fact's (and other relevant audiences') reactions to visuals with the goal of increasing persuasion in your favor. I'm not saying to exaggerate or mischaracterize your point with demonstratives or even use them at every case and opportunity. But I am saying that you should understand their power.
Even the most unbiased jurors (and judges!) get gut feelings. That is why being able to show them what you mean in addition to speaking to them about the facts and law can help your client and case. Consider all the tools at your disposal—including demonstratives. Doing so can help the jurors to feel that the other side is "guilty" or did "it"…even if it's not technically correct.
That's how they need to feel. Period.
Daniel J. Bender is a litigation graphics consultant with Digital Evidence Group, LLC in Washington, DC and a former litigator.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHelping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
Why Litigation Demand Might Break Firms’ Boom-and-Bust Cycle
Trending Stories
- 1Land Use Issues Presented By Cold Storage Warehouses
- 2Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 3Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 4SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 5Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250