ILNews

Book review: 'The Science of Attorney Advocacy'

Rodney Nordstrom
November 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

nordstromcover1123-1col.jpgUnlike other books I have recently reviewed, the book “The Science of Attorney Advocacy targets a different type of reader. If you are a curious law student or devoted trial consultant wanting to know more about trial advocacy and how it interfaces with social science research, this book will interest you. If you are a trial lawyer or professor and want a quick overview of courtroom and trial psychology protocol, this is a readable introductory.

The book has six chapters plus an introduction covering a wide range of secondary topics: attorney demeanor, verbal communication, paralinguistics (study of pitch, volume and intonation), kinesic communications (study of body movement, gestures and facial expressions), attorney-client relationships and attorney storytelling. It consists of 298 pages and costs around $50.

Each chapter examines relevant research literature to see what commonly held beliefs are actually supported and which ones are not. This overview is then followed by recommendations and conclusions. Each chapter is like a sprint through the mountains of social science research literature underlying much of what we know or believe about the role of the various facets of courtroom persuasion. For example, the chapter on attorney demeanor analyzes likability, honesty, fairness and credibility and the likely effect these have on a juror. The authors then examine the social science research to see what part of trial advocacy is supported or not supported by the literature. Each chapter subtopic is kind of like a “MythBusters” for the trial attorney.

No book is perfect; all have some weakness. I was disappointed that most of the cited research was relatively old by research standards. Old doesn’t mean bad, just potentially outdated. Although the reference section boasts an impressive 900-plus citations, most of the cited sources are pre-2005. There has been a huge amount of research published since 2005 that could easily have been cited. There are a few reference throw-ins after 2005, as if more recent pieces were tossed in to make the book seem more comprehensive than it actually is. The most glaring absences in this reference section are the ubiquitous “Reptile by David Ball and Don Keenan and “Rules of the Road by Rick Friedman.

Authors Jessica Finley and Bruce Sales, each with J.D. and Ph.D. degrees, present an even balance of the released research findings and adopt a “just the facts ma’am” approach. In the end, the reader is left a little overwhelmed because of the point/counterpoint style of the research findings. It should not surprise the reader that not all trial-related research yields consistent black and white results.

What the reader will not find are sweeping revelations, conclusions or insights. There are no easy answers telling the trial lawyer what he should do to maximize effectiveness with jurors. In fact, the book shows trial effectiveness depends on many complex human and situational factors. While Findley and Sales have done a terrific job of summarizing the classic social science research studies up through 2005, the topics remain perplexing to the advocate trying to make sense of it all. This book, indirectly, highlights the limitations that can be made about human perception and decision making. In the end, jury selection remains largely an enigma.•

__________

Rodney Nordstrom Ph.D., J.D., is a trial consultant with his company Litigation Simulation Services (www.litsim.com) located in Peoria, Ill. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

ADVERTISEMENT