ILNews

DTCI: The science of opening statements

Persuading through the use of primary and recency effects

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

kanasky-bill-dtci.jpg Kanasky
pinkie-elliott-mug.jpg Pinkie

By Elliott I. Pinkie and Bill Kanasky

The opening statement is counsel’s opportunity to provide a preview of the evidence with the power of persuasion built in to make a credible and influential impact upon the trier of fact. It is not the time for argument. This article will explain the science and use associated with primacy and recency effects and offer guidance to the defense lawyer on opening statements.

Indiana Jury Trial Rule 21 provides for the parties’ opening statement. Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 43(D) governing how evidence is presented also makes reference to the opening statement. However, it offers little guidance for the litigator. While counsel is usually allowed latitude in the opening statement, the extent of an attorney’s opening statement to the jury is subject to the court’s discretion, including its fullness or brevity. Vanyo v. State, 450 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. 1983).

The use of primacy and recency effects in the opening statement can pave the way for a successful trial outcome. The primacy and recency effects are some of the most misinterpreted psychological constructs in litigation. Trial attorneys commonly believe that most jurors usually remember the first and last things said to them. However, it is not that simple. True primacy and recency effects occur only when memory accuracy varies as a function of an item’s position within a list of words in a controlled research setting. It is impossible to replicate these memory effects in the courtroom because the information presented to jurors is incredibly different from a list of words in a laboratory.

Variations of the primacy and recency effects do exist in the courtroom. In fact, more sophisticated versions of the primacy and recency effects exist in the trial setting and mainly during opening statement presentation. These effects have a significant impact on jurors processing information and their decision-making. The primacy effect plays a very powerful role at the onset of opening statement, whereas the recency effect plays a key role at the end of the opening. Trial attorneys should understand what primacy and recency effects really are and, even more important, how they can be used as weapons in the courtroom during opening statement.

Primacy effect

During trials, jurors perceive information presented early in an opening statement as more valuable and meaningful than information presented in the middle or at the end. Start hard and fast out of the gate and finish strong is a common litigation battle cry. A strong message to start with in opening not only enhances jurors’ memory encoding related to that information, but it also (positively or negatively) affects processing of subsequent information presented to jurors during the opening. Rather than a true primacy effect (i.e., basic memory enhancement), it is better labeled a “primacy-saliency” effect. For example, people form a more positive impression of someone described as, “intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical and stubborn,” than when they are given the same characteristics in reverse order. This is because the first two adjectives are automatically valued more by the brain than the middle and later ones. A distinction between a strict primacy effect versus a primacy-saliency effect is value compared to recall. If a juror recalls information due to a primacy effect, but does not value it, there is little benefit to the sponsoring litigator. Value leads to better recall, but recall doesn’t necessarily lead to better value. The careful, strategic ordering of information in an opening statement is critical to jury persuasion.

During the first three minutes of an opening statement, jurors tend to form a working hypothesis that affects how they interpret the rest of the information presented. Counsel can inadvertently stack the deck against themselves by beginning their opening statement with the wrong information and inadvertently taint the jury’s perceptions going forward. Information presented early in an opening statement acts as a filter through which all subsequent information flows. This filter can drastically affect how jurors perceive information as the presentation progresses.

For pure persuasion, a trial attorney should begin the opening by installing the most effective filter. To do this, consider the following at your next trial by jury for the defense:

• foregoing small talk with the jury

• using a passionate, not vengeful, tone

• resetting the playing field immediately by fighting fire with fire

• starting with three to four key “zingers” that attack rather than defend

• illuminating the apex of the defense story first, rather than working up to it.

It is essential to drive home key themes (i.e., “zingers”) related to plaintiff culpability and/or alternative causation immediately. Remember, this is the time when the jurors’ brains are most receptive. The defense story should proceed only after the filter has been placed, which should significantly influence jurors’ perceptions and working hypotheses of the case. This powerful starting strategy was adopted from the silver-screen; it is referred to as the “flash forward” start. Movies don’t begin at the beginning of the story, but rather at some other point in the story that no one expects, thus creating immediate curiosity, suspense and intrigue. Director Martin Scorsese has used this te chnique on many occasions to create Oscar Award-winning movies, such as “Goodfellas” (1990), “Casino” (1998), and “Gangs of New York” (2002). These films do not start with “once upon a time ... .” They start with a brutal murder of a rival gangster, a murder attempt by car explosion, and a violent territorial war on the streets of lower Manhattan in 1846. The result: the viewers are primed and on the edge of their seats. The same should happen in the courtroom. The best way to accomplish this is to flash forward to culpability and/or alternative causation immediately, and then start the defense story.

Consider the following start of an opening statement for the defense in an employment case:

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, my name is Mr. X from XYZ and Associates Law, a firm located right here in Small Town, USA. It is my pleasure to represent ABC Company in this lawsuit. ABC Company has been operating here in Small Town for the last 95 years, and it is an ethical company with high standards and values. Speaking of values, my father taught me many values growing up, and one of them was to be patient before making important decisions. He always told me to take my time, and weigh all the factors before making key life choices, as quick, hasty decisions would lead to misjudgments and carelessness. In this case, I ask you to do the same: be patient. Let all the evidence come out, and listen to both sides of this story. In fact, the judge will tell you the same thing before you enter the deliberation room. It is important for you to know that ABC Company is a company that believes in diversity. We are a company that believes in fairness. We employ people from many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and all different age groups. The claim that our management repeatedly punished and eventually fired Mr. J because of his race is absurd and just plain not true. The claim that we singled him out is untrue. We intend to show you the many reasons why Mr. J had to be punished and then fired, and we believe you will understand that ABC Company did the right thing in this case.

The weaponry in this opening is at the middle and end, too late to have the strong impact on jurors’ decision-making. A common mistake in any defense opening statement is to go on the defensive and address the plaintiff’s allegations. After plaintiff’s counsel has just bludgeoned the defense in opening statement, natural temptation is to address and deny each allegation one-by-one. Addressing each claim can be a fatal defense mistake. It highlights and may even validate the plaintiff’s claims. By reacting to plaintiff’s story, the defense plays right into the plaintiff’s case. The defense opening statement is an opportunity to come out of the corner swinging, rather than dancing and dodging. Plaintiff’s counsel desires to put all of the (negative) attention on the defendant. By the defense systematically denying each claim and stating how the defendant is good and did nothing wrong, the defense can inadvertently reinforce the plaintiff’s claims placing the spotlight of blame on the defense, rather than plaintiff. This effect is called the “availability bias,” meaning jurors tend to blame the party that is most “available” (i.e., in the spotlight).

Manipulating the “availability bias” is essential to a persuasive opening statement for the defense. The way to win in the jury room is to arm jurors with the necessary weapon to decide the case in your favor for the defense. This can be done only by the defense attacking and arming early. The defense needs to arm jurors with the real story and immediately put the plaintiff or alternative causation on trial. This accomplishes three critical jury-level goals: (1) it arouses jurors’ attention, (2) it halts the plaintiff’s momentum, and (3) it makes the trial about the plaintiff or an alternative cause, not the defendant.

Consider this beginning of an opening for the same employment case:

On June 1, 2010, Mr. J failed to perform his work responsibilities in a safe manner, resulting in a pipe leak that damaged $15,000 of product, and even worse, put his coworkers in danger. Mr. J let down the company, his team, and most important, himself. This case is not about race, period. This case is about responsibility. About teamwork. About safety. About accountability. About fairness. Mr. J did not take his work responsibilities seriously. You will hear that he was disciplined three times for sleeping on the job, while his co-workers picked up his slack. You will hear that he was disciplined twice for not following safety protocols and procedures, putting himself and his co-workers in unnecessary danger. After several of these instances, did ABC Company fire Mr. J? No. We kept him. We provided him with more training. We gave him more supervision. We were fair. We wanted him to grow and develop, but Mr. J simply refused. He chose not to grow. He chose not to develop. Instead he continued to sleep on the job and continued to cut corners with safety procedures. These, and only these, are the reasons why Mr. J was fired. His race is irrelevant. Today, Mr. J is here playing the blame game: blaming everyone else but himself. He refuses to take responsibility for his actions and inactions that resulted in dangerous work environments and substantial loss of product.

This strategy used in opening accomplishes several things:

it immediately illuminates the apex of the defense story (i.e., flash forward)

it quickly highlights plaintiff culpability issues

it is proactive, not reactive

it creates intrigue and curiosity

it establishes a pro-defense lens through which the jurors can see the rest of the story.

Recency effect

The recency effect is far less powerful as compared to primacy. It is only a simple enhancement of short-term memory due to the recent exposure to the information. In other words, it is easier to remember information from an hour ago than information from a week ago. While recent (i.e., later) information from an opening statement will be remembered well, it will not be as persuasive as information presented early. Therefore, defense attorneys should avoid placing new information toward the end of their opening. This is a critical issue because some of the most important defense information is often located later in the timeline of events. The defense story should not be presented chronologically because the second half of the story will never be valued as much as the first. To really persuade a jury, one must understand how the juror brain works and then present the information in the most strategic way to ensure value.

Trial attorneys can still use the recency effect to their advantage in opening statement. Use the end of the opening (i.e., the last three minutes) to repeat and reemphasize the start of the opening. Focus can be on those key points that highlight plaintiff’s culpability and/or alternative causation, as well as the apex of the defense theme. Strategically using the start and end of the opening to focus on these issues will likely enhance persuasion and increase the odds of a defense victory.

This is not to say that the middle of the opening statement serves no purpose. Jurors don’t necessarily ignore the middle of any opening; they just don’t remember or value it as much as the beginning. They don’t remember it as well because as the opening statement progresses, their short-term memory becomes saturated, and their attention/concentration levels gradually decrease. Even if the judge allows jurors to take notes, the action of writing tends to distract jurors.

Tools defense attorneys can use to improve juror memory recall from information presented in the middle of the opening statement include variables such as visual aids, emotion and repetition. All can positively affect a juror’s ability to remember information regardless of where or when in the opening the information is presented.

Psychology can assist attorneys in designing opening statements that will have influential impact on the jurors’ perceptions of the case. By properly using the primacy-saliency effect, counsel can force jurors to assess immediately the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s case. In addition, using the recency effect to repeat key themes in the defense at the end of opening statement ensures jurors will have a better grasp of the defense trial positions. Jurors frequently enter the courtroom expecting to assign blame regardless of the court’s instructions. The cognitive process of assigning blame starts early at trial and is finished well before closing arguments. By understanding how jurors’ brains function and strategically delivering information in opening statement, defense attorneys can significantly increase the odds of a favorable verdict.•

Elliott I. Pinkie is a partner with Schultz & Pogue, LLP, in Indianapolis. He is a member of DTCI’s Trial Tactics and Health Litigation Sections, and is vice-chair of the Trial Tactics Section. His practice focuses on civil litigation for the defense with a concentration in medical malpractice. He can be reached at 317-262-1000 or epinkie@schultzpoguelaw.com. Bill Kanasky Jr., Ph.D. is the director of litigation psychology at Courtroom Sciences Inc., a full-service, national litigation consulting firm with offices in Dallas and Chicago. He is recognized as a national expert, author and speaker in the areas of witness preparation and jury psychology. He can be reached at 312-415-0600 or bkanasky@courtroomsciences.com. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the authors.
ADVERTISEMENT

  • rvary@masudlaborlaw.com
    Excellent article with solid examples. Highly recommend.

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT