1
2	Advice on Trial Strategy What do we know? Statistical Verdict Studies Surveys Mock Jury Experiments What can we extrapolate from what we know? Related Studies Experience with Similar Cases What do we need to study? Run our own survey, focus group or mock trial
3	Information Aggregation Meter Readers (Lopes, 1986, Hogarth and Einhorn, 1992) Algebraic Balancing Anchoring and Adjustment Story Tellers (Pennington and Hastie, 1991) Narrative Construction Seek Coherence More prevalent
4	Hindsight Bias Jurors tend to treat low a probability event that actually occurs as much more likely than it is. Jurors will believe it to have been more easily anticipated and will assign greater urgency to guarding against it. Jurors often conclude that parties to a contract should have anticipated every contingency. Jurors tend to blame “the big guy, with all his fancy, high-priced lawyers.” A second order effect is that the more bizarre the circumstances, the more jurors tend to believe that it must have been “somebody’s fault.” One strategy for overcoming hindsight bias is to argue by analogy to something familiar to jurors.
5	Issue Salience and Persuasion (Petty et al., 1981)
6	Factors Affecting Jury Performance Give Instructions First. Improves Jury Recollection of Relevant Information (Elwork, Sales, and Alfini, 1977) Defanging Offering bad news yourself allows jurors to provide counter-arguments. Example: The “Hired Gun” effect.
7	Damage Calculations A variety of strategies are employed (Goodman, Greene, and Loftus, 1989) “Ad damnum” is often used as anchor for award. (Zuehl, 1982) A “counter-anchor” can affect the jury’s calculations. (Raitz, et al., 1990) Itemized verdict forms can reduce excessive damage awards. (Zuehl, 1982)
8	Zuehl’s Ad damnum Study (1982)
9	Punitive Damages in Business Cases Punitive Damages are most common in business cases (contract, fraud, employment) according to Eisenberg, et al. The request for punitive damages tends to increase the size of the compensatory award, even if no punitive damages are awarded. When conduct is egregious and punitive damages are capped or unavailable, juries react by increasing compensatory awards
10	Do Juries Help Out Local Litigants? Punitive Awards
11	Auditory and Visual Cues of Deception Zuckerman, DePaulo and Rosenthal 1981 Do jurors infer truthfulness of testimony from verbal and visual cues? Subjects saw/heard taped testimony which varied along three dimensions: Audible Speech. Visible Body. Visible Face. Some subjects only read a transcript of testimony.
12	Auditory and Visual Cues of Deception: Results Zuckerman, DePaulo and Rosenthal 1981