Comfort Zone
By R. Craig Smith
There is an element of unpredictability when a group of individuals with different backgrounds and experiences are brought together and placed into a jury box to render a verdict that will hurt one side. But when jurors are given what they need to do their job, they will react predictably and favorably most of the time. Even in small trials, jurors feel the world is watching them and measuring their performance, which makes the jurors more sensitive than ever about how they are being treated and perceived.
It is imperative, then, that trial lawyers understand the importance of recognizing and meeting the needs of jurors. This understanding will result if the lawyers follow what this author calls the “The Rule of Cs” or the six most important needs that must be addressed in every trial. Those needs are comfort, clarity, continuity, credibility, conclusiveness, and conviction. This article, however, will only cover the first component, comfort.
Lawyers do not normally consider the physical comfort of jurors because there is little they can do to improve the comfort of 12 people locked in a jury box. So what can the trial lawyer do to raise the comfort level of jurors? They can adhere to the three key elements in meeting the comfort needs of jurors. Those elements are:
- Respect for jurors’ time.
- Laughter, where appropriate.
- Respect for opposing counsel and jurors generally.
In communicating with the jury, the trial lawyer has many opportunities to control the jurors’ impressions and expectations. Time is the single most important thing on the minds of most jurors. The reality is that rather than listening to every word during a case presentation, jurors are most often likely to be asking themselves, “When is he going to get the point? When is this going to be over?”
In a recent trial, an attorney got up after a lengthy and “not so interesting” trial and announced that he was going to be brief because the evidence was so clear. Two hours later he was still going – retrying the entire case, point by agonizing point. Twice he said, “Just one last point,” and then covered a number of points that did not have anything to do with the promised “last point.” At least four times he used the words, “And finally,” without ending his comments. In the lawyer’s mind, during questioning and especially during closing argument, there is a natural tendency to want to be sure that all the key points are covered.
One of the best closing arguments took less than 12 minutes. The attorney told the jury that the judge had allowed him an hour to argue his client’s case. He told them that he did not believe he would need that much time but indulged their patience anyway, expressing appreciation for their attention. He stood up, made his case in 11 minutes and 45 seconds, thanked the jury and sat down. In unison, jurors actually looked at their watches. They nodded their approval and, three hours later, returned a verdict that greatly pleased both the client and the attorney. That is what meeting the comfort needs of the jury is all about. But it is not the only thing lawyers can do.
A little laughter is the second element of comfort. Whether the trial is about a dispute between former business partners, a construction defect case or a traumatic murder, jurors come into the courtroom a little anxious and a little stiff. The solemnity of the courtroom is unfamiliar to most jurors, and the presence of uniformed ballifs adds to the sense of seriousness. The court room is not a “cozy,” comforting place.
So how do lawyers deal with jurors in a traditionally formal setting, where protocol rules, where the atmosphere is adversarial, and the game is played in what often seems a bloodless vacuum? The answer is simple—give the jury something to laugh at periodically. A trial is not a setting for stand-up comedy, but it is a process involving real people. While the evidence in any case should be considered seriously and not taken lightly, there are opportunities in every trial to allow jurors the comfort and luxury of a good laugh. It refreshes jurors and gives them a bit of normalcy in an otherwise stifling forum.
The third element of the comfort needs is respect. Showing respect to opposing counsel in front of the jury lets jurors know that an attorney is an advocate of
Craig Smith is the senior trial consultant at Prolumina Trial Technologies, in Seattle. He is a frequent CLE presenter, author of numerous articles on courtroom communication and trial strategies, and is the author of "Championship Law—Seven Keys to Winning Performance in the Courtroom.”
|
Print this page 
Email
vCard
Profile