ILNews

Nordstrom: Book offers advice on treatment of jurors

Rodney Nordstrom
March 14, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

The theme of the book, “Twelve Heroes, One Voice,” is why should jurors care? Why should they care enough to let go of the natural tendency to do nothing? This question is at the heart of every trial. The answer is they all secretly want to become a Jungian archetypal “hero.” The book is about how to make jurors the center of the story. Trial consultants and good trial attorneys have searched endlessly for new ways to engage jurors in the trial story.

As the title suggests, the single most important goal of voir dire is to empower the jurors, to show them that, if chosen, they are going to wield enormous power – by putting a value on someone’s life or deciding what it would take to stop nursing home misconduct.twelve-heroes-cover-1col.jpg

The next most useful bit of advice by author Carl Bettinger is developing and telling your case using the story spine approach: “Once upon a time … And every day… Until one day… And as a result of that … Until, finally … And ever since then …” Our minds are pre-programmed to understand information that is presented in this format. By following this approach, you keep jurors’ attention and your focus on the case theme. Point of view is everything.

Bettinger reminds us that a courtroom is not a friendly place to most. What do jurors first see when they walk into the courtroom? Someone wearing a black robe, a bunch of people, obviously the lawyers, dressed in suits, staring at them as they come in, taking notes, whispering to one another as though inspecting prized cattle at an auction. It’s a very unfriendly, scary environment. The attorney should appreciate this and do whatever he can to ease the discomfort of jurors.

Bettinger makes a distinction between a “case” and a “story.” Your client has a story (not a case) and it is your role to communicate the story, using all the components mentioned above. All human beings yearn to take on the hero’s role and want to feel good (and confident) about their ultimate decision. Most good trial stories focus on a fight for survival and self-actualization. Good stories are about universal truths and must remind jurors of the greatest human accomplishments, not sadness, blame or shame.

He adds that at trial, your role as advocate is transformed into that of mentor, the defendant into a villain, the plaintiff into a brave victim, with the unwitting jury serving the role of hero. He quotes liberally from recent movies and the classics. He also uses transcript clips and illustrations.

Most lawyers fail to recognize that voir dire is not the time for advocacy. Voir dire is the time to show a genuine interest in other human beings simply because they are human beings who have been called upon to provide a great service. “And if you don’t show a genuine interest, if you try to fake it as though it’s a cheap date that you want for a one night stand, they’ll know that.”

Opening statement is time for you to define the story roles of everyone in the courtroom (presumably including the bailiff, court reporter, security, attorneys and judge). Cross- and direct examination furthers character development all the way to closing statement, which allows jurors to write the conclusion of the story allowing them to “save the day.”

This book contains 10 chapters and is 155 pages with appendix published by Trial Guides for $85. Chapter 1 introduces the “Hero-centric” storytelling model. Chapter 2 is about the importance of making the listener (jury) the center of the trial. Chapter 3 is making the trial story user-friendly and Chapter 4 is development and definition of the mentor, villain and victim character role. Chapter 5 is the application, with examples, of the story approach to both criminal and civil trials. Chapter 6 is devoted to dealing with case weaknesses in voir dire. Chapter 7 is opening statement and Chapter 8 is how to conduct direct and cross-examination using the “hero-centered” approach and sequencing witnesses. Chapter 9 is the closing statement: “Do you want just a song or do you want a hit?” Lastly, Chapter 10 is the closing thoughts and reasons to motivate jurors to adopt his approach to your cases.

The strength of the book is that it reminds me that we must continue to focus on giving jurors reasons to like our client and their story. It is a refreshing approach to jury selection where the juror, i.e., the listener, is the focus. It is about how to be a “total” lawyer, using psychology, literature and stories and is not about law books or legal theory. The book’s goal is to tell you how to make jurors want to listen and CARE through the art of effective storytelling. Although his approach is impressive, it is not a panacea in and of itself. It offers a much-needed adjunct to the existing body of work of David Wenner, Don Keenan, David Ball and Rick Friedman. Simply put, the book is all about transforming the jury into the hero.

This book is written for practicing attorneys. It does not offer fanciful legal advice or complex legal strategies and assumes you have those requisite skills by the time you become a trial lawyer. Bettinger, no stranger to big cases, is both a trial attorney and medical doctor; but, it is his understanding of the importance of storytelling that motivates the listener to want to vote for your client. His recent $54 million verdict in a nursing home case gives him credibility.•

Rodney Nordstrom, Ph.D., J.D., is a trial consultant with his company Litigation Simulation Services located in Peoria, Illinois. 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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT