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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT