Understanding the Appeal of Your Opponent’s Case Is a Key to Winning at Trial.

Harry Plotkin is a jury consultant who sends out jury tips once a month.  I’m not sure how I got on his email list but I’m glad I am.  He has very insightful information.  This month his focus is on understanding the opposing side in order to avoid giving the jury the impression you do not understand or concede your opponent’s points.  Here are some highlights: read more

“[W]e see no harm in allowing [counsel] to use a cultural reference as shorthand [in closing argument] . . .

to make the point that, in [counsel’s] opinion, [plaintiff’s] damages methodology was likely to render this jury’s verdict excessive.”  Boyle v. Christensen, 2009 UT App 241.  The Court makes it clear you should feel free to refer to iconic events or cases to assist your argument.  Here, counsel referred to the “McDonald’s” excessive verdict to sway the jury to see this plaintiff’s claims as excessive.  Get creative.  You have “considerable latitude” in closing arguments just as long as you don’t refer to “material that the jury would not be justified in considering in reaching its verdict.”

MUJI 2d Will Try to Address the “Google” Mistrial

The ubiquitous smartphone strikes again: the New York Times reports that jury misconduct in the form of researching on the internet the case on trial in courtroom.  Is this the tip of the iceberg?  Perhaps before smartphones became as widespread independent jury research was limited to juries doing their research on their home computers after hours.  Now it seems every juror with a smartphone is googling the defendant over the lunch hour in even one-day trials:

A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case.  Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from point A to point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

Utah is currently in the process of redrafting its Model Utah Jury Instructions and will apparently include a jury instruction to address the threatened “Google” mistrial.  It is reported that the proposed jury instruction will instruct jurors to not use the Internet while they are serving as jurors.  Presumably the instruction will be tailored to each case since many people use the Internet for much more than research or inappropriately twittering about their jury trial.  We shall see.