During recent virtual focus groups, plaintiff-leaning participants explained the reasoning behind their verdicts by citing three key arguments – each one simple, concise and highly logical. The problem? The plaintiff herself wasn’t actually making any of those arguments.
Although we repeatedly pointed this out to jurors, these same arguments consistently resurfaced. Because participants found the plaintiff’s causation theory to be complicated and rather hard to follow, those intent on awarding money quickly came up with their own criticisms of the defendants that better fit what they believed the plaintiff’s case should be.
Without getting into specifics, our Zoom respondents viewed this situation as a classic “missed diagnosis” case involving doctors who failed to “dig deeper” to uncover a rare, underlying condition in time to prevent injury. However, the plaintiffs’ experts all agreed this incredibly rare disorder could not have been diagnosed by the defendant doctors, and were only arguing that they should have “followed up more” with the patient’s primary care doctors about additional testing – an argument many jurors found tenuous at best.
During research for an array of cases, we have frequently encountered this juror tendency to come up with their own narrative – especially when the actual criticisms and/or storylines are unclear or vague – highlighting the importance of establishing early on not only what a case is about, but also what it isn’t about.
Based on our observations during Group One, for the second session we educated jurors up front regarding the fundamental plaintiff and defense arguments (basically miniaturized opening statements), and also clarified what both sides were not arguing, leading to a more streamlined discussion and, ultimately, a more focused and defense-oriented group.
Regardless of the type of case, before heading to trial it is crucial to understand how jurors view the facts on a gut level, and what kind of narrative they naturally gravitate to. That way, your team has the opportunity to explain to trial jurors what they are truly there to decide, and develop a story that aligns with their gut-check perceptions.
Every case is different, just as every jurisdiction poses its own challenges. We are busy conducting virtual and live focus groups, and are happy to help you with your case evaluation needs.
Pivoting During a Pandemic
We have resumed in-person research in some areas, but we will continue conducting virtual focus groups and witness preparation sessions in many jurisdictions into the fall and perhaps winter. This includes areas with an older population that is higher risk, or places with extremely restrictive social distancing policies limiting the number of people in a room.
Our virtual focus groups have provided our clients a meaningful way to evaluate cases and develop mediation and trial strategy. Through Zoom, we can conduct focus groups that provide the same kind of challenging, juror-driven discussion you love from Jury Impact but through remote technology. Juror predispositions, case facts, arguments, witness videos and damages can all be tested while you observe and communicate with our backroom analysts to make sure the research stays focused on your priorities.
Jurors are craving both social interaction and financial compensation right now, and this format allows your trial team to safely explore their perspectives through virtual-only research. Contact us for more information on this approach, or a brief, no-cost webinar to see exactly how it works.
