A more informed and scientific approach to jury selection.

I spend a lot of time thinking.

Through applied and theoretical research, I inform how human decisions interact with bias in the judicial setting. I study juries and the individual difference of the jurors that comprise them.

My journey has led me to the intersection of social psychology, law, and organizational communication where I explore how our beliefs are construed socially that evolve our world views defining how we make decisions and interact with those around us. This exploration goes beyond academic curiosity; it reflects my profound desire to connect with the essence of individuality, in its purest form.

This quest is not merely academic; it’s a compassionate dive into the human condition, striving to understand how the concept of justice interacts with our societal fabric. My focus intends to sharpen on the social psychology of juror decision-making, investigating how individual differences influence justice through the collection of individual differences that manifest as group dispositions.

LEARN MORE THINKING AND ANALYSIS

Frequently asked questions

If you are curious if there is a service offering I may provide, consider my expertise, and how I might help your organization or inform your trial strategy.

Litigation Consultation

I offer a suite of services within the scope of litigation or trial consulting. These services range from mock trials to evidence based approaches to small group research (SGR) designed to more intimately replicate juror decision making in the venire.

Small Group Research (SGR)

In this domain, I frequently conduct focus groups and mock trials, which are essential in determining causal factors related to juror decision making.

Discussions closely examine core case issues and understanding members connections to those issues and reasoning for them.

The typical trial consulting focus group lasts 2–3 hours. Focus groups are especially useful for identifying case themes, guiding the process of discovery, and testing responses to specific aspects of a case. I frequently facilitate focus groups in online settings that are synchronous.

Mock Trials

Mock Trials are a tool of utility which increase the likelihood for a favorable outcome at trial. Mock trials can last an entire day, sometimes more. Typically, I recruit enough participants to enable several juries, abbreviate arguments for both the plaintiff and defense, and test opening statements, deposition testimony, demonstrative evidence, and in certain cases, actors to portray witnesses.

In the end, each jury delivers a verdict, which follows deliberation. Frequently I utilize technology to as an enablement to observe deliberations, although many mock jurors are unaware of this observational state.

Witness Preparation

Very often, trial witnesses are not well versed in persuasive speaking techniques; even those who are highly competent in their field of expertise might do a poor job testifying, due to nervousness associated with public speaking or lack of practice conveying information to a lay audience.

Add to that the formality of the courtroom, presence of the authoritative judge, and prospect of cross-examination by a hostile attorney set on undermining one’s credibility, and it is understandable that many
people do not perform well under such pressure.

I provide useful guidance to help witnesses understand the impact of their trial testimony and to prepare them to control features of presentation ultimately related to persuasion, noting that a nervous witness is a less credible witness (Bothwell & Jalil,1992).

Core Aims

Whether I am facilitating a SGR or mock trial, I have two aims: generalizability and representativeness. These two features refer to the specific context of the jurisdiction and are aimed to 1) achieve results in SGR that are generalizable to the greater environment and 2) the results are representative of the venire.

Separate and distinctly, I review attorney’s performance, both in simulated settings in alignment with the research of Linz, Penrod, and McDonald (1986) conducted posttrial research in which surrounds attorney presentational variables of articulateness, friendliness, enthusiasm, formality, humorousness, nervousness, and arrogance key factors which influence believability and aligned with empirical research on persuasion.