With the public so skeptical of traditional authorities, Internet resources have become a frequent first stop when people are looking for answers – whether the question is something as routine as “Can I ignore my check engine light?” or as potentially life changing as “Do I have cancer?”

Just last week, we were fascinated to read about a new website called CrowdMed that outsources your medical diagnosis to the public.  You submit a description of what’s ailing you, and the site’s “medical detectives” will do the sleuthing to figure out your condition.  The surprising part is CrowdMed’s detectives don’t need to be doctors or nurses, and it brags that it doesn’t care about their formal credentials – all that matters is whether they can figure out the patient’s problem.

Instead of just trusting the authorities, today’s skeptical jurors want to be convinced that an expert is credible – and nothing speaks to these jurors like experience and clear communication.  In our survey, the number one factor survey respondents said they look for in an expert testimony is years of experience (75 percent), followed closely 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 and the reasons why he or she enjoys that particular specialty.  And it may even be necessary to “re-train” experienced witnesses on the important of explaining things clearly with a minimum of 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 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.

This ignited a heated and sometimes nasty debate between those in favor and those opposed to the practice.  Our two cents?  In most circumstances, we enthusiastically favor juror questions.  A few reasons why:

During 10 years of jury research we have learned that one of the biggest differences between favorable and problematic jurisdictions is how the jurors view the concept of a plaintiff’s personal responsibility.  In some of the more conservative jurisdictions, a pregnant plaintiff who misses a handful of prenatal appointments becomes the primary focus of criticism, whereas in more plaintiff-friendly venues, a plaintiff who started prenatal care at eight months creates an increased expectation for caregivers to “do more” to ensure a healthy baby is delivered.

Likewise, a medical malpractice case involving a patient who smoked against doctors’ orders and refused to make diet changes can prompt divergent interpretations depending on the makeup of the jury.  After all, in certain jurisdictions where many of your jurors are themselves smokers, don’t count calories and have never heard of CrossFit, they are less likely to be receptive to arguments that the plaintiff’s own health choices led to a poor outcome. 

Now, when you just read that article, what was your reaction?  It could probably fit into two general opinions:

The point of all this is that every audience is different and it is always to your benefit to know what kind of audience you’ll be facing, as well as their experiences, outlooks and mindsets, before setting foot in a courtroom.  If you have an upcoming case and want to better understand the worldview of your particular jurisdiction, and how it could affect your case, please contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010.  

The ethics of social media audits have been a gray area in many jurisdictions, since sites such as LinkedIn might notify a user of another person accessing their page – which could be construed as communication with a juror.  However, The American Bar Association has decided such searches are not considered communication unless the searcher “friends,” “follows” or “likes” the juror’s page.

These audits are also valuable during trial to see if jurors are following orders to refrain from posting or commenting about the trial.  If selection time is so short that quick searches won’t reveal any damning information, further research after the jury is picked could prove helpful to make sure jurors are following instructions not to post about the trial.

If you have an upcoming trial that would benefit from some extra Googling, jury selection or monitoring assistance, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010.