As Wall Street zombies block the Brooklyn Bridge, the American public is struggling with an acute case of Dissociative Identity Disorder. (*Note: Possibly, my best opening line ever.) We don’t trust big corporations, but we need them to create jobs. We don’t trust big government, but we need it to protect us from the corporations. However, the many bailouts since 2008 have suggested there may be some connection between big government and big corporations (he said sarcastically). Small local companies seem to have genetic immunity to our vitriol, but who can tell what is small anymore (see Starbucks’ 15th Ave Coffee & Tea).
The public (a.k.a. your jury), seems to be going through a phase where bigger is not better. As a result, companies will often be entering the courtroom carrying very heavy and expensive baggage. (Think Eva Gabor in Green Acres.) This presents attorneys who represent large entities with a quandary: How do I overcome the “bigger” bias?
Marissa Alkhazov sets the stage in her blog entitled “The Top 5 Misconceptions Juries Have About Insurers.” Insurers are like traffic cops, no one likes them until they need them. The media caricature of an insurance company is often the most vivid image in a juror’s mind. This is a problem that also plagues other industries like banks, oil companies and big pharma. In theory, jurors should dismiss these mental images. In reality, that is asking the impossible.
The first step in combatting this bias is voir dire. Those whose judgment is particularly vulnerable to emotional clouding should be spotted and dismissed for cause. (Why waste a peremptory?) This can only be accomplished through carefully designed and executed questioning with follow ups.
Secondly, the company must create a connection with the jury. Many attorneys use blunt-force humanization. For example, “This Company was founded in 1902 by Cletus Goodfellow with a few dollars and a dream.” However, mock trial research often demonstrates that jurors see this is as an overt attempt at manipulation. Instead, the best humanization comes from an actual human: a well-prepared witness. Creating abstract emotional connections with a company brand is very challenging in court. Creating a sympathetic connection with a person testifying on the stand is much easier.
Finally, focus on the story, not the characters. If framed appropriately, jurors will be discussing the questionable actions (not actors) on the other side. Your narrative and themes will keep people centered on the job of a jury: to decide a lawsuit, not to judge a beauty pageant.
Blogger: Matt McCusker
