Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Youtube Linkedin Envelope

case framing

0
Post Views: 1,095
Episode

108 – Jessica Brylo – Trial Dynamics: Tipping the Scales in Your Favor

By Michael Cowen — 10 months ago

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More

On this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with Jessica Brylo, owner and lead consultant at Trial Dynamics. They discuss Jessica’s path to success, identifying juror attitudes, jury decision-making, case framing, focus groups, and much more.

Michael begins the episode by asking Jessica about her background and what got her into jury consulting. Jessica shares how she went to law school at Duke, where she got in contact with David Ball. She began attending focus groups and learning from David, and it became clear that jury research and consulting was her calling.

Michael then asks her to share some wisdom she’s learned along the way regarding juror attitudes. Jessica starts by stating most jurors and juries do a good job and arrive at logical conclusions; the interesting part as a researcher is looking at how they got there (Hint: It’s rarely how the lawyer thought they would). This is because jurors make decisions based on their own past experiences, and much of their decision-making process is unconscious.

Jessica continues on this line of thought by explaining how the different facts you hear every day are all brought into your brain and “filtered through your life experiences.” If this new fact fits within those experiences, you will likely accept it. If it does not fit within those experiences or goes against your beliefs, you’ll either change the fact in your mind or throw it out altogether. The key is to build your story around what those pre-existing beliefs are and fit it within that framework. And since every fact you hear is filtered through previously learned facts, Jessica emphasizes that messing up during voir dire and opening statement is extremely hard to come back from.

“When [jurors] hear a fact, they don’t just hear the fact in isolation.” – Jessica Brylo

Michael and Jessica continue to discuss Jessica’s experience and insights into juror decision making, including how to keep a positive atmosphere while finding what jurors you need to strike, what you can do to prepare a case of any value, and how to identify potential leaders on a jury panel.

The conversation then shifts to the practice of Case Framing, something Jessica specializes in. She defines it simply as the way in which you portray a case, then elaborates on the different ways to tell this story in a persuasive way, starting with not focusing on the plaintiff. Instead, Jessica says you should focus on the wrong the defendant did; better yet what the company or industry as a whole did, and the potential ramifications of that wrongdoing.

Additionally, Jessica explains how you need to keep your focus on the facts of YOUR case and not fall prey to the “red herrings” the defense throws at you. While you need to address what happened in the crash, you should remind the jurors that the point is irrelevant to the case as a whole. When the defense tries to take the crash out of context, it’s your job to put it back into context.

“You can’t play a defensive game all the time. You need to focus on your best facts, focus on where you need the jurors to be.” – Jessica Brylo

Michael then asks Jessica a somewhat controversial question- what is the main purpose of jury selection? She acknowledges the different opinions of Nick Rowley and other prominent trial lawyers, but says for her it’s:

  1. Reveal bad jurors.
  2. Form a connection with the jurors.

Jessica then shares her insightful strategies for finding out who the bad jurors are, then how she connects with the jurors.

While Jessica recognizes the differing opinions surrounding jury selection, there are certain mistakes that just should not be made. Common ones she sees are the lawyer talking too much about themselves, asking jurors if they “have a problem” with things or if they “can be fair” about things, and asking the jurors’ opinion about political topics like Trump or the COVID response.

“They’re trying to do the right thing, but it’s just not the right phrasing and words to do it.” – Jessica Brylo

Michael and Jessica wrap up the episode by discussing focus groups. In an ideal world, you could hire a consultant to run all your focus groups but given budget constraints and varying case values that’s just not realistic. When running your own focus group, Jessica recommends doing your best to find a truly representative jury pool, which can be harder than you’d think. She also cautions against some common mistakes she sees in focus groups, including pushing your own stuff too much and not focusing on the negative aspects of your case. They finish up on what to do with the valuable, though negative, information you receive at the focus group.

Jessica wrote and released a free e-book for plaintiff lawyers, detailing the do’s and don’ts of running your own focus group. If you’re interested in this free e-book, email jessica@trialdynamics.net and request a copy. If you’re interested in working with Jessica Brylo, visit her website at www.trialdynamics.net.

This episode also covers the Arizona Jury Project, why word choice is so important, how to use the defense’s behavior throughout the lawsuit against them with the jury, and so much more.

 

Guest Bio:

Jessica Brylo, J.D., M.A. is the owner and lead consultant at Trial Dynamics. She graduated cum laude from Duke Law School in 2007 where she received her J.D. and Masters in Psychology. While there, she was trained by one of the nation’s leading trial consultants, David Ball, Ph.D. She was given the privilege held by only a handful of people in the country of being able to study video of real juries deliberating from the Arizona Project. While at Duke, she spent three years studying juries, visiting courthouses, interviewing jurors, and interning with Dr. Ball. She trained in the art of editing opening statements and closing arguments to address the jurors’ unconscious minds, thus making cases stronger by creating jurors who fight for your client when they are in the deliberation room.

She founded Hoffman Brylo Consulting, now Trial Dynamics, in 2008, a full-service consulting firm specializing in plaintiff’s cases. Since then, she has expanded the firm to serve a wider range of cases nationally. She believes that no two cases are alike and that jurors respond to small nuances that make huge differences in verdicts. Consulting strategy techniques can reveal these subtleties and shed light on how to overcome hidden problems in the case, but only if conducted properly with attention to detail.

0
Post Views: 2,571
Episode

77 – Gregory Cusimano – Understanding & Utilizing The Jury Bias Model

By Michael Cowen — 2 years ago

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More

In this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with trial lawyer and consultant Gregory Cusimano. As one of the authors of “Winning Case Preparation: Understanding Jury Bias,” Gregory has conducted a plethora of research on why plaintiff’s lawyers win and lose cases. He and Michael discuss his 10 part jury bias model in detail and how you can apply it to your own cases. 

They start off the episode with Michael asking Gregory how he first got involved with this research. He explains how it began as an AAJ committee which he co-chaired with attorney David Winters. The committee was instated because there had been a trend of good lawyers losing good cases, and they wanted to understand why it was happening. After conducting around 1,000 focus groups on every case type imaginable, they developed the foundations of the jury bias model. 

Gregory goes on to share how it didn’t take long to identify the five common anti-plaintiff biases, which they called “untried issues.” These are issues which are important to a jury, but not to the plaintiff’s lawyer, so most lawyers would try the case without ever addressing them. The initial 5 untried issues included personal responsibility, suspicion, victimization, “stuff” happens, and “blame the plaintiff.” While some of these may seem obvious, Gregory explains why understanding these issues is critical for your case.  

Michael then asks Gregory what plaintiff’s lawyers can do about these issues, which he admits was the much harder answer to find. In time, he was able to come up with the “10 Commandments,” or 10 decision-making events or aspects that tend to work. He emphasizes that these are in no way a fool-proof formula to win every case, but instead are a way to use social science to present your case in the best way possible.  

The first (and incredibly important) step is to develop the trial story. The story should be discovered through jury research. Then, you frame your trial story to be consistent with the beliefs of the potential jurors in your venue. Gregory then eloquently ties in the concepts of Fundamental Attribution Error and Availability principle to explain how important framing and ordering of the facts is to the success of your case.  

The next step is to elicit confirmation. Once you’ve found through research what the jurors in your venue believe, you need to present the case in a way which is “hand in glove” to what they already believe. When Michael asks Gregory how the lawyer should figure this out, his answer is fitting with the research he’s done: concept focus groups. If the case warrants it, this is the gold standard in Gregory’s opinion. If it’s a smaller case or you don’t have the funds to hire an outside consultant to hold the focus group, Gregory STRONGLY cautions against attempting to do it yourself. Instead, you should ask colleagues, friends, or family to participate in the process. This is because lawyers are already so invested in their own cases it’s nearly impossible to not project your own biases to your mock jury. Lastly, it’s important to remember that a focus group is qualitative, not quantitative research. A group of 10 is not a big enough sample size to conclude why you need a specific type of person on your jury. 

Another “commandment” is to “head the norm.” Gregory explains how this stems from the “norm principal,” and when applied to trial it means if the conduct of the defendant is “according to the norm,” juries are not likely to find liability. He shares an example of a case he had where a man was on the back of a garbage truck that crashed into another vehicle, amputating the man’s leg. He thought the case was perfect, but he kept losing in every focus group and mock trial. Eventually, he realized even though men standing on the back of a garbage truck is incredibly dangerous, every juror had seen people doing it. It was the norm, so they never found liability.  

They move on to discuss another commandment, “plan for hindsight bias.” This is framing your case in a way where a jury would think, “I knew that was going to happen.” For example, a product liability case begins in a corporate boardroom six years ago when they decided not to go with a safer option. As you share the subsequent meetings and decisions made, the jury already knows how the story is going to go when your client swerves to avoid a puppy in the road.  

The next commandment is to create empathy. Referencing “Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow” by Danny Kahneman, he explains how there are two distinct ways in which people make decisions – intuitive or logical and reasonable. It may seem backwards, but if you can get the jury to project empathy, they will begin to use more logic and analyze. Gregory then emphasizes empathy is NOT sympathy, and shares why it is such an important distinction. 

They move on to briefly discuss Michael’s favorite commandment, “drop the anchor” before the 10th and final commandment, “build the frame.” Citing Mark Mandell, Gregory elaborates that framing can be both overall and very minor. He and Michael both share examples they’ve used in cases which appear minor, but made a huge difference in the jury’s perception of a statement. 

They conclude the episode by discussing the third and final section of Gregory’s book, the new method for putting a case together. He describes how he uses the 10 commandments in such a clear and concise way anyone who puts in the work can do it. In fact, this strategy has been so successful that Gregory and his team have found it will move a good case 15-20% into the plaintiff lawyer’s favor! This incredibly informative episode is truly a must-listen for any plaintiff lawyer who wants a leg up with the jury!  

If you’d like to contact Gregory to learn more from him or to consult on a case, you can email him at greg@winningworks.com or call his office at 256-543-0400.  

 

Guest Bio:  

Gregory S. Cusimano is an owner of the law firm of Cusimano, Roberts, Mills & Knowlton, LLC in Gadsden, Al. and Winning Works LLC a national trial consulting firm. He concentrates his practice on serious personal injury and death cases.   He is a frequent speaker at continuing legal education programs throughout the country. Mr. Cusimano was twice elected to serve on AAJ’s Executive Committee and budget Committee, was chair of the ATLA Blue Ribbon Committee to study juror bias and continues to conduct research on tort reform rhetoric and juror attitudes.  He, along with David A. Wenner, developed the Jury Bias Model™ that many say revolutionized how cases are tried today. 

Cusimano has held every elected office in the Alabama Trial Lawyers Association, including president. The Association has honored him with an annual Cusimano Symposium.  He was appointed by the Alabama Supreme Court to committees to rewrite Alabama Rules of Evidence, the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions, and to revise the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. On two occasions, Mr. Cusimano was asked to be the plenary speaker at his State Bar Association’s annual meeting. He served on the President’s Council of the ATLA, (American Association for Justice – AAJ), and was the first to be made a Lifetime Member of the Board of Governors, 

Mr. Cusimano has published numerous articles in state and national magazines and contributed to articles in various treatises.  He is contributing editor of the two volume Alabama Tort Law book, through the fourth edition and co-edited the six-volume set Litigating Tort Cases. He is one of the authors to Winning Case Preparation  published by Trial Guides. He is listed in Best Lawyers of America and is a Life Member in the National Registry of Who’s Who in American Law. Cusimano was the second inductee into the Hall of Fame of the Small Office Practice Section of AAJ.  He is a Diplomate of the International Academy of Litigators and The American Board of Trial Advocates. The designation of Diplomat and Champion of Trial Advocacy was bestowed on him by AAJ’s National College of Advocacy.  He was inducted as a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and the Alabama Law Foundation.  Cusimano served as Chairperson of the National College of Advocacy.  He was given the prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and the Leonard Ring Champion of Justice Award by AAJ. 

2
Post Views: 5,098
Episode

67 – Brendan Lupetin – Masked Justice: Part 1

By Michael Cowen — 2 years ago

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with trial attorney Brendan Lupetin out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Brendan, a self-proclaimed “trial nerd,” is one of just a handful of attorneys who has tried a case in the era of COVID-19, receiving a $10.8 million dollar jury verdict on his medical negligence case. They’ll discuss Brendan’s background, the details of the case, how he prepared, what it was like trying a case during a pandemic, and his advice for lawyers and courts across the country to start having jury trials again.

The episode begins with an overview of Brendan’s background and how he became the successful trial lawyer he is today. He explains how he began by trying about 10 bad cases where he lost “in brutal fashion,” and finally found his first victory with a $500 rear-end car case verdict. Since then, he’s focused on reading everything and anything he can on trials. Now, he’s tried 40 cases to jury verdict and has found great success in the last 10.

As a self-proclaimed “trial nerd,” Brendan spends most of his free time reading and studying the work of other great trial lawyers and legal scholars, citing Rick Friedman, Keith Mitnik, David Ball, Artemis Malekpour, Jude Basille, and many others. He and Michael discuss the difficulties of implementing all the trial theories and strategies available today, but Brendan explains how his approach is to blend them all together to find what works best for him. A sentiment echoed by Michael and certainly a recurring theme on the show.
Michael then asks Brendan about the details of the medical malpractice case he recently tried. While the difficulties of trying a case during a pandemic are apparent, Brendan insists his job was made easier by the fact that this was truly a great case. Brendan’s client, a 41-year old father and project manager, went to the hospital for an MRI. He had an allergic reaction to the contrasting chemical they injected him with. While the hospital had policies in place to protect patients in the event of an allergic reaction, none of those policies were followed and Brendan’s client was unfortunately left with a severe brain injury.

Michael then notes that Brendan ended up with such a simple theory, which Brendan explains was a long road to get to. They originally had 3 defendants, but after numerous focus groups and hiring John Campbell of Empirical Jury to run a study after Brendan “serendipitously” listened to his podcast episode 3 ½ weeks before the trial, they decided to drop one of the defendants because he complicated the story. Michael agrees that this was a smart move, quoting Rodney Jew by saying, “If you chase two rabbits, you won’t catch either one.”

Brendan also kept in mind Mark Mandell’s case framing theory throughout the trial and describes how he was tempted to dispute the defense’s timeline of events because he found they were about a minute and a half off. But after employing the case framing theory, he and his partner decided to leave that out because it drew away from the main focus of the case – “Policy violations caused delay, and delay is never good in an emergency.”

Michael then asks Brendan what else he’s learned throughout his study of advocacy that he used in the trial, to which Brendan simply replies, “everything.” He describes his journey to crafting the perfect opening statement, employing techniques from David Ball, Nick Rowley, Keith Mitnik, and many others. He also recorded the final product and shared it on his YouTube channel. It’s clear throughout the episode that Brendan is truly a lifelong learner and is constantly honing his craft as a trial lawyer.

After gaining insight into the case and Brendan’s trial techniques, Michael asks the question on everyone’s mind – What was it like trying a case during the pandemic? Brendan first gives credit to Judge Jackie Bernard and the court system for setting up an incredibly safe and effective trial plan, and emphasizes the need for more courts to follow suit and begin holding jury trials again.
The court began by sending out a questionnaire to potential jurors which asked hardship questions, immediately excluding anybody who had health concerns or was extremely uncomfortable attending a trial because of COVID-19. Voir dire was held in a huge courtroom with 45 people in the room, and 45 others in a separate room watching on video. The process was so streamlined and well planned that they were able to select the jury in less than four hours.

Once the trial began, this attention to detail became even more evident. Everybody wore masks for the duration of the trial, there was plexiglass around the judge and witness stand, and the jury was spread out around the room in a way so creative you have to hear it to believe it. By using these precautions, the trial went on without a hitch and with a significantly lower risk of infection than a traditional trial set up.

Brendan and Michael agree that without a significant threat of a trial, their big cases won’t result in a fair settlement. They discuss the immediate need for courts to find a safe solution to continue jury trials and the need for plaintiff lawyers to work together to persuade their courts to do so.

They end the episode on a surprising note. Brendan explains how everybody thinks trying a case during the pandemic is this crazy experience, but he said it really didn’t feel very different from trying a case in a courtroom you haven’t been in before. You always need to adapt to a new judge’s rules, a new courtroom set up, etc. This wasn’t much different than that. And by implementing the safety precautions Brendan described, courts around the country can begin to open and allow the pursuit of justice instead of pushing trials off further and further. As Brendan poetically put it, “Hope is not a plan.”

If you’d like to learn more from Brendan Lupetin, visit his firm’s website and subscribe to his YouTube channel.

This podcast also covers Brendan’s favorite closing strategy, obtaining a representative jury during COVID-19, the “freaky” accurate results of Brendan’s Empirical Jury study with John Campbell, and so much more.

 

Interested in hearing more COVID Era trial stories? Check out our other Masked Justice episodes:

 

Bio:

Brendan is a trial lawyer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  He focuses on medical malpractice, product defect and personal injury law.  He loves helping the people he represents and trying their cases to jury verdict when necessary.

Brendan is a trial nerd and truly enjoys reading trial books, studying trial videos and seminars, watching trials and “talking shop” with fellow trial lawyers.

The son of a doctor and trauma counselor Brendan learned early on the importance of compassion, empathy and to always stand up for what is right, no matter the consequence.

Following a four-year tenure as a scholarship swimmer, Brendan received his B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh in 2000 and his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 2005.
During his career, Brendan has tried numerous cases of all types to jury verdict.  Over the course of the past several years, Brendan has obtained numerous multi-million-dollar verdicts for his clients – all of which far exceeded the highest offers of settlement.

What Brendan loves more than anything, however, is spending time with his wife and high school sweetheart Lacey and their three sons Nathan, John and Owen.

 

0
Post Views: 5,069
Episode

64 – Mark Mandell – The Case Framing Mindset

By Michael Cowen — 3 years ago

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael is joined by legendary trial lawyer and author Mark Mandell. Mark wrote the must-read books “Case Framing” and “Advanced Case Framing.” Michael and Mark take a detailed look inside these books, including what case framing is, how to apply case framing, what “I just can’t get over” issues are, using “echoes” in trial, Mark’s trial closing strategy, and the story of the hardest case Mark ever tried.

Michael begins the episode by asking Mark to describe what case framing is. Mark starts at the beginning and explains how when he first started practicing, plaintiff lawyers were basically in “the dark ages.” Mark began looking for new ways to try cases almost immediately, but found each method he tried had holes in it. Then about 15 years ago, he started to study decision science and put together the basis of case framing.

Mark insists case framing is not just a method. As another great lawyer stated and Mark has since adopted, “It’s more than a model. It’s a mindset.” Mark explains how case framing has become a part of him, and influences everything he does both pre-trial and in trial. When he was first asked to describe case framing in one sentence, Mark struggled initially but then settled on, “Every single thing you present at trial needs to be framed and sequenced in a way that focuses the attention of the jurors on the points YOU most want to make.” He goes on to describe how a case is decided by what it’s focused on, so why would you want to focus on anything else? As Mark astutely summarizes, “A case frame is the heart and soul of the case. It gives the case meaning.”

Mark continues with explaining how a case frame needs to have two qualities. It needs to relate to the facts of the case, and it needs to have universal application in our society. He shares the detailed example of how he first came to understand this from the OJ Simpson criminal trial. Mark lists off the issues of the case and explains how they aren’t case frames. After exhausting these, Mark explains how the case frame was actually wrongful accusation and elaborates on why that is such a powerful case frame to use because of both its power and universal applicability.

Michael then asks Mark to explain the next level of case framing, which Mark named “I just can’t get over” issues. Simply put, it’s an issue that if a jury can’t get over, it’s going to guide their verdict. These issues can come from an almost endless amount of places, but they need to embody that statement.

As a follow up Michael asks what every listener must be thinking, what are some examples of defense “I can’t get over” issues and what can plaintiff lawyers do to overcome them? Mark gives a laundry list of examples and directs listeners to his book “Advanced Case Framing” where he details 16 different ways to overcome them. He briefly explains how to overcome these issues by refuting them or by “substituting them” or “overcoming them” with more powerful issues.

Another aspect of case framing Mark discusses in his books is “echoes.” Marks insists this is actually one of the hardest concepts to understand. An echo needs to either support or defend an issue, or Mark says you shouldn’t use it. It can be a document, idea, exhibit, or many other things that cause a good issue to reverberate throughout the jury’s head throughout trial. Mark explains how people need echoes to fully understand something because nobody can pay attention indefinitely. He then provides several examples of echoes he used when trying a DRAM shop case which he says is the hardest case he’s ever tried. Through this example, he highlights the importance of ignoring chronology and starting the case at the #1 “good for you” issue in the case.

The conversation shifts to a discussion of Mark’s different closing strategies. The first of those is that he never discloses his overall case frame until closing. He has numerous reasons for doing this, including that you need to leave something new to tell the jury in closing – and since the jury always goes into closing arguments undecided on something, what could be better to present to them than your overall case frame? His other reasons include rebuttal rules and that your case frame can change during trial, based on how it unfolds.

Mark is also known for using questions in his closing arguments, which Michael asks Mark to explain. Mark offers a surprisingly simple answer – people don’t like being told what to do. Mark continues by explaining that when you tell the jury what to do, YOU become the issue. When jurors come up with the answer themselves, “They own that answer now.”  He believes this causes them to go into deliberation much stronger. Michael adds that trusting the jury is both the most liberating and terrifying thing, to which Mark agrees. But, it makes trial a lot more fun AND leads to better results.

Michael and Mark conclude the episode by taking a detailed look at the DRAM shop case which Mark insists is the most difficult case he’s ever tried. Mark walks listeners through the shocking details of the case and explains how he applied his methods throughout. After being told by countless lawyers to drop the case, Mark walked away with a $21.5 million verdict after interest. This story truly needs to be heard to be appreciated.

This podcast also covers Mark’s advice on one of Michael’s more challenging cases, using anchors in trial, secondary case frames, beginning every witness examination with an “I can’t get over” issue, and so much more.

If you’d like to learn more from Mark Mandell, visit his website and purchase his books “Case Framing” and “Advanced Case Framing” here.

 

Guest Bio:

Mark Mandell practices law at Mandell, Boisclair & Mandell, Ltd. in Providence, Rhode Island. He specializes in catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, medical negligence, dram shop and products liability cases.  He is triple Board Certified, nationally.  His certifications are in the areas of Civil Trials, Civil Pretrial and Medical Negligence Litigation.  Mr. Mandell is currently listed in “The Best Lawyers in America.” He is a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates.  Mr. Mandell is a past president of American Association for Justice, Rhode Island Trial Lawyers Association, and The Rhode Island Bar Association.  He is the immediate past chair of the Board of Directors of the Roger Williams University School of Law. He has more million dollar verdicts and verdicts of over $10,000,000 than any other lawyer in Rhode Island history.  Mark has written two books “Case Framing” and “Advanced Case Framing”.  He has also published 24 articles in national and state trial law journals on a variety of subjects and has lectured in 48 states.