This article explores a common phenomenon in criminal cases: jury evaluation of law enforcement. It describes the processes by which litigants seek and offer, and juries assess, evidence pertinent to evaluating law enforcement; assesses the historical development of the phenomenon; and argues that courts (and the justice system more broadly) should accept and accommodate this
A succinct rumination on story-telling with some sage advice, illustrative of which is the following. “ Your story is not just what you say it is. It’s more about what your jury says it is. A good storyteller invites the jury to join in the narrative conversation and add to it (or subtract from the
The author, both an attorney and an actor, identifies skills from the latter ‘stage’ and suggests their application in the courtroom.
As expressed by the authors, “tempered against the “learning from the masters” approach, we will examine the closing argument from the perspective of communication and learning theory. Effective trial advocacy requires more than mere imitation; it requires the integration of fundamental communication principles.”
This Article explores how judges’ hidden cognitive biases, specifically the “anchoring effect” and, to a lesser extent, the “bias blind spot,” impact decision making. See also Guthrie et al., Inside The Judicial Mind, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 777 (2001).
Combining psychological research and the techniques of the magician, Beckman discusses how misdirection, word selection, instructions and other standard tools in magic shows are utilized in trial presentations.
An essential survey of research on the perception and memory capabilities of elderly witnesses that suggests “best practices” for eliciting reliable testimony from such witnesses.
Bridging evidence law and advocacy, Professor Poulin dissects and criticizes the practice of telling the back-story – how a defendant came to be a suspect – which is used to increase the richness of story-telling but inevitably runs afoul of the presumption of innocence.
Abbe Smith, a great lawyer and teacher, reflects on reconciling feminist principles with serving as defense counsel in cases of sexual assault.
Johnson “posits that powerful emotional hooks set forth in introductory paragraphs in stellar briefs–emotional hooks that often have nothing at all to do with the merits of the case–do certainly play a role in the determination of hotly contested Supreme Court decisions[,]” offering a critical lesson for those who advocate in the written formats.