ILNews

Nordstrom: Book disappoints seasoned jury consultant

Rodney Nordstrom
July 20, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

When I first saw the flyer for this book, I immediately thought of the potential for application to trial work. The book’s catch phrase “It’s not what people hear. It’s what they repeat,” has natural application for use with a jury, or so I thought. I believed that anything that can enhance a trial lawyer’s communication effectiveness is worth studying. Unfortunately, after reading this book, I was disappointed.

nordstrom-book-review-cover4c-1colThe main point of this book is the author’s concept of the Dominant Selling Idea as it relates to marketing, selling, and politics. A DSI is a central proposition underlying the message much like a case theme. The concepts in the book are pretty much already obvious to the trial lawyer. The examples cited by the author are outdated and contrite. The author advocates making the DSI, or in trial parlance, case theme, simple and memorable like the oft-quoted phrase, “if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.” A DSI is generally a good idea to follow as it relates to developing a case theme. As the DSI model contemplates, it should sell your case in a simple short phrase. A DSI for a wrongful death of a child case might be: “For sale: Baby shoes. Never worn.”

The book introduces common terms like heuristics and metaphors. A heuristic is a mental shortcut that saves the brain from running thousands of algorithms leading to a quick conclusion. Think of it as a mental shortcut. Yes, juries use heuristics to help them analyze and decide a case and it is critical that trial lawyers identify naturally occurring case heuristics. That’s why focus groups are so critical. Once a heuristic is identified, it can be effectually incorporated into your trial strategy. The examples cited by the author are not really applicable for trial purposes.

Although the book is simple to read, in an hour or so, it offers little benefit to a seasoned trial attorney. Its nine chapters – 171 pages – are more aimed at a branding or a selling strategy: not as part of trial application. As a communication enhancing book it offers little insight from the lawyer’s perspective. In conclusion, perhaps I have unfairly compared this book to another book, “Winning with Stories” by Jim Perdue, which is a must-read for all trial lawyers.•

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 the author’s.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT