Think of a Viking. A four word command, a simple task. And what pops into your mind? Is it something like this picture, like the fierce warrior Leif Erickson? That’s what transpired when the grave of a Viking was discovered in 1878. This is what was seen (an artist’s rendering): The assumption – a male
In a time before the open and watchful eye of technology, in an unknown part of the Midwest, in a town of a few hundred people, in the stillness of a cool and windless night, in four different rooms of a well-known farmhouse. In four blasts of a borrowed shotgun. In the Clutter family’s house.
Calling a witness a “Bimbo.” Making suggestive hand gestures. These were highlighted facets of two closing arguments in high-profile criminal trials in the calendar year 2022. Were they a reflection of our national political discourse; an attempt to be aggressive as part of zealous representation; or offensive, stupid and ineffectual? The final term – ineffectual
In a time before the open and watchful eye of technology, in an unknown part of the Midwest, in a town of a few hundred people, in the stillness of a cool and windless night, in four different rooms of a well-known farmhouse. In four blasts of a borrowed shotgun. In the Clutter family’s house.
Anecdotally, we know these truths to be self-evident – jurors find trials boring (at least many trials, after a while) and resent repetition. Some juror notes published by Judge Christina Habas reveal how the trial’s captive audience may feel about repetition. One juror exhibited their frustration with repetition by drawing a doodle in their notes.
Before I sat down to write, I tried to remember the angriest person I ever saw. Before you keep reading, think about it with me for a second. I kept recalling viral videos of people in public places screaming at other people for no discernably good reason. If you’ve ever seen one of these viral
Is trial advocacy art, science, or some of each? The answer is definitely the third, although the science part often gets lost in the shuffle or is alleged science with no data to back it up [think {80% of juries decide the case after opening” or “a picture plus words causes 60% fact retention”]. Finding
Jurors, and perhaps people in general, are often poor at judging those whose lives and experiences differ from their own. June’s BRAIN LESSONS wrote about one aspect of that inadequacy, what Grant told us is called “Conditional-Contrastive Inculpation” [see https://law.temple.edu/aer/2022/06/17/brain-lessons-the-words-in-a-sentence-of-guilt/ ]. In its simplest words, we become judgmental by saying that “I wouldn’t have responded
If you say the word “analogy” to a lawyer, I would guess we all instantly think of case analogies—our minds, as we were trained, diving right back into the last trench from which we lobbed analogical grenades at some judge and her clerks. I suspect, however, that we might react differently to hearing the word
The power of ordering – where you place a fact or argument – should be beyond question. But read on – what goes first at trial may not always determine outcome. The importance of ordering is known well beyond the courtroom and is the starting place for much of cognitive psychology. It is proved in