As we discussed in our previous Things article on August 8, it’s no secret the American public is more skeptical now than ever. Distrust of institutions – the federal government, media and medical authorities, to name a few – is at a global all-time high. Whether contemporary events have produced this distrust or it has been a long time in the making, one thing is clear: Jurors are less likely than ever to trust witnesses based simply on their employer’s reputation or educational background.
This is especially true for millennials. The younger generations, who are skeptical of everything and everyone, also tend to be overly confident in their ability to determine what information has merit and what is fake or meaningless. Unfortunately, what this means in the courtroom is that if a younger juror doesn’t buy into your expert’s testimony, they are likely to hold steadfast by that opinion regardless of credentials or what other jurors say.
Although we would never assert that younger jurors are worse at making judgment calls on credibility, their generally negative view of institutions means they are even more likely than older jurors to dismiss traditional witness credentials in favor of other qualities when determining witness legitimacy. That is because instead of just trusting the authorities, today’s most skeptical jurors – millenials and Gen Zers – want to be convinced that an expert is credible. We have found the best way to do this is by highlighting an expert’s experience and ability to communicate clearly.
In our own nationwide research, only 6 percent of respondents said having a famous employer (such as Harvard or Stanford) was among the most important factors in how credible they find an expert witness. Likewise, the same number of respondents chose the number of awards the expert has received as a top credibility indicator. Most respondents instead placed weight on years of experience (75 percent), followed closely by the ability to explain things in simple terms (71 percent).
From our perspective, these findings should play into both how you choose your experts and how you present them at trial. In medical cases, it might be better to choose a local doctor who’s been practicing in the community for 30 years and excels at talking to regular people than a big-name university hotshot with no bedside manner. When presenting your witness at trial, don’t gloss over that person’s experience in favor of chairmanships and accolades – let that witness talk about the thousands of patients he or she has treated, their daily experience in the field (we have seen credibility jump when a doctor reports delivering a baby just hours before coming to the courtroom) and the reasons why he or she chose and enjoys that particular specialty. And it may even be necessary to “re-train” experienced witnesses on the importance of using clear explanations with minimal jargon.
If you’d like our help evaluating your witnesses and helping them appeal to today’s juries, we’d be happy to lend our perspective. Contact Partner/Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010 to find out more about our witness evaluation and witness preparation services.
