ILNews

Nordstrom: Book offers little insight for experienced trial attorneys

Rodney Nordstrom
October 10, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The book, “Winning the Jury’s Attention: Presenting Evidence from Voir Dire to Closing,” piqued my attention as a trial lawyer and trial consultant. Anything that improves our ability to “win over” the jury for our client is worth learning about. As most trial attorneys realize, jurors are not simply going to hand over their undivided attention for a lengthy trial unless the trial attorney is capable of making it interesting for them. In the courtroom you simply cannot demand attention but must attract attention. In order to do this, you need to select the right message, present it in the right way, and do so within the allotted time. Although the tips offered in the book are solid, they are tips we have heard before.

Author Trey Cox reminds us lawyers are not considerate of jurors’ time. Jurors have lives, husbands, wives and jobs to get back to. Every minute they are sitting in trial, their normal living activity is disrupted. And though jurors take their duties seriously and will work hard to sit in judgment of your case, they do not want their time to be wasted. Too often trial lawyers waste their time by repeating the same information and asking the same questions. This turns jurors off.

Trial lawyers have to show that they are proficient and efficient at what they do. Jurors flyspeck your every move for clues to your credibility, competence and trustworthiness. If you appear lost and confused or labor over the admission of exhibits, neither you, your abilities, nor your trustworthiness will rate very high with the jury. On the other hand, if you move through the evidence efficiently, with confidence, and demonstrate a mastery of the facts, the jury will surrender its attention to you because you are a leader in the courtroom.

Cox reminds us of several common principles for communicating effectively with a jury:

• The Personal Credibility Principle: Demonstrate competence, accuracy, leadership and efficiency to gain credibility.

• The Signaling Principle: People learn better when the material is presented with clear outlines and headings.

• The Segmentation Principle: People learn better when information is presented in bite-sized chunks.

• The Multimedia Principle: People learn better from words and pictures than from words alone.

• The Coherence Principle: People learn better when extraneous material is excluded.

• The Stickiness Principle: Make your themes and ideas “sticky.”

• The Jolt Principle: Periodically jolt your jury so they don’t bolt.

Although these seven principles are always good reminders, they offered little additional new information for anyone having done more than a few jury trials. These suggestions are common sense and second nature to experienced litigators.

One shortcoming of the book is that the author does not clearly identify his target audience. This is not necessarily a big deal, but experienced litigators will find the book underwhelming. A college pre-law student or law student, taking a first trial advocacy class, would get more out of it.

The author appears to be committed to understanding jurors but his trial inexperience is demonstrated by his lack of examples of actual trial applications. In other words, he advances the usual tips important to most trial advocates; i.e., “don’t speak like a lawyer,” “be confident” and “value the jury’s time.” He also cites to the perfunctory Aristotle’s Principles of Rhetoric (Logos, Pathos and Ethos) and Rule of Threes. The book reads more like a primer to jury selection, rather than a book on meaningful tips for experienced litigators.

The author heralds his many personal accomplishments; however many of these compliments refer to his rating in Martindale Hubble and recognition by the “Best Lawyers” title but do not reference any meaningful or significant trial victories let alone trial experiences. He also references his experience clerking for a federal District judge.

Although Cox is described in his book as “a pioneer in complex technology and neuroscientific principles to improve jury communications and persuasion,” nothing in the book appears to be “pioneering” and little, if any, offers to “advanced technology and neuroscientific principles” as they relate to “winning” jurors’ attention. Despite the limitations mentioned above, Cox’s effort is quite apparent. The book does offer merit as an overview of how common skills can benefit a beginning trial lawyer. The book by Trey Cox is 201 pages, 14 chapters, published by First Chair Press, and sells for $69.95.•

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

ADVERTISEMENT

  • trial attorneys
    Photo taken in the Bencher's Room of the Honorable Society of the King's Inns: (From left to right) Michael Collins SC, Mr Justice Paul Carney, Dermot Gleeson SC, Mr Justice Niall Fennelly, Tom Girardi, David Barniville SC, Mr. Justice Donal O'Donnell, Turlough O'Donnell SC, Paul Gallaher SC, Mr. Justice Colm Ó h’Eochaidh, Brian Murray SC, Paul Sreenan SC and Mr. trial attorneys

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT