Working with various attorneys over the last several months I've heard myself repeat something over and over again:
"Your case is not about your client."
This, understandably, catches some people off guard. What? How is my case -not- about my client?
Well, obviously it's about your client as far as that's why you're bringing the case to trial. Someone harmed, maimed or killed your client (or your client's family member) necessitating this need for trial.
But when we get down to communicating to jurors what the case is about, it's not about the client.
It's about a violated principle. Your client is just a representation of the result of the violated principle.
Principles are, as Stephen Covey says in Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, "...deep, fundamental truths that have universal applications."
Principles act as natural laws. They are what govern human behavior. And although we all violate these principles in various ways throughout our lifetime, they serve as landmarks for how society should operate and behave.
Here are some principles/violations that nearly all humans hold as sacred:
Nearly any plaintiff case can fit into a violation of one of these principles.
These are just a few examples, and many of the above examples could fit other principle violations. The point is, jurors don't find for plaintiffs, they
take a stand for principles.
As much as we'd like jurors to care about our client, they don't. Tort reform has made sure of that. What you must do instead is get jurors to rally around the principle in your case.
Give this podcast episode a listen to learn more.
This one's going out to the ladies.
But men, there's stuff here for you too.
In nearly every seminar I present, I always get a question from a female trial lawyer in the audience. It usually goes like this:
"How do you suggest women use these techniques?"
"The same way men use these techniques. My advice does not change depending on what's in your underwear."
But here's the thing: these women aren't asking how to use the techniques, as I have just demonstrated how to use them in the seminar they just attended.
What they're really asking is, "How do I use these techniques and not get corrected/penalized/judged?"
And that's an entirely different question.
The truth of the matter is, women are unfairly chastised when they show up in a big, bold way in the courtroom (or anywhere else for that matter.)
And it's also true that women need to do it anyway.
Look, I get it. There's a lot on the line and there are consequences for women who dare show up authoritatively or wear what's comfortable or any of the hundreds of things men are allowed to do without anyone batting an eye.
But what I'm saying is, someone has to go first.
Someone always has to go first.
I firmly believe it is this generation of women that are going to change things. The women who are practicing law today are the ones who are willing to say, consequences be damned, "I'm done hiding who I am just so other people can be comfortable."
And with this bold step, they will make it comfortable for women in other professions to do the same.
There is no other option. You either bend yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to not piss anyone off, or you boldly go where very few women have gone before, and decide, right here and now, that you won't step back for anyone, even if it costs you a verdict.
But I don't think it will. Doing this job as long as I have has shown me one thing consistently: jurors love people, men OR women, who are comfortable in their own skin. Jurors love confidence. Jurors love lawyers who show up in a real, authentic way.
Does this mean you should make it all about you, aggressively throw your weight around or do things just to piss people off? No, and that advice stands for men as well.
Great communication is all about timing. You must know what is needed when. So show up as your big bad self, but also learn how to read your audience and adapt your communication so you are serving their needs as well.
Lady lawyers, I salute you and stand with you as you boldly stand up for your right to communicate, dress and lawyer any way you damn well please.
Give this podcast a listen to learn more.
It's easy to get angry at trial.
Lying witnesses, judges who block your planned voir dire, and opposing counsel that continually object have a way of getting you hot under the collar.
But communicating anger at trial can be dangerous.
First off, anger can cloud your judgement. Allowing yourself to get angry can take you off your game and cause you to make decisions that aren't good for you or your client.
Second, communicating anger at trial sends the message to jurors: "This.Is.Personal." Which means you are now, nonverbally, at least, asking the jury to award you, the trial lawyer, a verdict, instead of your client. No jury is willing to do that.
But third, and most importantly, anger communicated at trial reduces the amount of "space" allowed for anger. When you get angry at trial, you force jurors to "balance out" the emotional energy. If you're angry, they must remain calm, or the atmosphere gets too tense.
There are three things you can do when you feel angry at trial:
Don't let anger take you off course. When you feel angry, breathe and try and drop it. If you can't, let it be. And if appropriate, express it.
Remember: the truth needs no defense; it needs a voice. Your job is to be that voice so truth can prevail at trial.
Give this podcast a listen to learn more.
I wrote a book! From Hostage to Hero is now available via Trial Guides at www.trialguides.com.
I wanted to write a book for years, but it wasn't until I really understood that jurors are hostages and that lawyers--come to find out--are hostages too, that the concept took off.
In the book you'll learn about how a juror's brain is under attack during jury selection and how yours is too. I'll introduce you to the concept of permission and why increasing your nonverbal intelligence is the best way to build permission with jurors.
Then I'll walk you through the four steps you need to take to move jurors from hostage to hero.
Grab your copy and join me November 21st at 1 p.m. PST for a virtual launch party in the From Hostage to Hero Facebook Group. I'll walk you through the book, take your questions, and help you get the most out of your reading experience.
You don't want to miss it! Order your copy today to begin your journey from hostage to hero.
What is the focus of most voir dires?
To find the bad apples.
On its face, this make sense; bad jurors can derail things in the verdict room, making all your hard work for naught.
But consider this: it's going to take a team of willing participants to take heroic action for you and your client. Focusing on finding your bad jurors and then working with whoever is left is no way to build a team.
That's why I suggest you focus your voir dire on finding your ideal juror.
In order to find your ideal juror, you need to know what they look like.
To begin, look at the issues in your case.
Ask yourself, "What would an ideal juror have to think or believe for this no longer to be a fear?"
Instead of looking at how to frame your issues, look at what will fix them instead.
For example, if you're worried about the fact that your client is an undocumented immigrant, ask yourself, "What would fix this?"
An ideal juror in that case might believe:
If you hurt someone, you're responsible for the harm, regardless of the victim's citizenship status.
Continue coming up with beliefs your ideal juror will hold. Go down your list of issues and come up with 2 - 3 ideal juror beliefs for each issue. When you're done you should have a pretty comprehensive list.
Take a look at your list. Is it clear what kind of juror you're looking for now? You bet it is. Your ideal juror believes the things on this list. Now you know what to ask in voir dire.
Bonus? As you go looking for your ideal jurors, it will be really clear where the bad apples are.
What you focus on, you create. Look for your ideal juror and they'll show up.
In 2009, after a double bird strike, which killed both engines, Captain Sullenberger made the decision to land a commercial jet with 155 people on board in the Hudson River. A few seconds before the plane hit the water, Captain Sullenberger came on the intercom and said three words which many passengers later said calmed them down immediately.
What were those three words? Perhaps they were words of comfort like, “We’ll be ok,” or “Don’t you worry.” No, the three words Captain Sullenberger said were:
“Brace for impact.”
Brace for impact? How on earth are those words comforting? They aren’t. That’s the point. It isn’t –what– Captain Sullenberger said, it’s how he said it that brought assurance to the passengers. He was in command of his breathing. He was calm. He was confident. And although the words he said were, “Brace for impact,” the message the passengers received was, “We’re in good hands.”
Leadership is communicated. You can think you’re a leader, but unless you can communicate it, no one else will see you that way. But how is leadership communicated? Through breathing.
Authenticity shows people who you are but breathing shows people how you are. If you are not breathing well, or holding your breath in court, you activate your fight or flight response. When you are in fight or flight, you are in survival mode, which means you’re looking out for yourself. No one is going to follow someone who is only looking out for themselves! Breathing well in court communicates, “I’ve got this,” and shows jurors that you are a safe, steady presence and someone worthy of following.
If you want to show up as a leader in court, get your breathing under control. The jury wants to know you’ve got the knowledge, experience, and skill to handle the stress of trial. You communicate all of these things through breathing. But you also communicate that jurors are safe with you. Breathe deeply, and often, and you’ll start to see your leadership grow in court.
Last week I talked about getting clear on want.
But knowing what you want is only half the battle. You also have to want the side of shit that comes with your want.
In other words, when you pick up one end of the stick, you also pick up the other.
Here's what I mean:
Every "want" has a shadow side.
Want a satisfying relationship with someone?
Choosing that means you're also choosing disagreements, not being able to make decisions without taking someone else into consideration, not sleeping with other people and all sorts of other things.
Want to have a kick ass body?
Choosing that means you're also choosing not eating whatever the hell you want, spending time exercising instead of doing other things, drinking lots of water instead of alcohol, etc.
Want to run a business?
Choosing that means you're also choosing mundane tasks, managing people, financial ups and downs and lots of other non-sexy things.
You have to embrace the shadow side of your work. Opposing counsel that makes every interaction a drawn-out nightmare. Putting up your own money. Clients who make your life miserable.
These are the things that come with the job you've chosen. Seeing this clearly instead of shaking your fist in the air stops unnecessary suffering. You have enough stress in your life. Stop being surprised that this job is hard. Embrace it.
You can, and should, get clear on what you want. But as you do that, also consider that whatever you choose, you're choosing the shadow side too.
When you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other. Choose wisely.
What's getting in your way?
Well if you're like most of my clients, I bet it's one of these three things:
You Don't Know What You Want
What do you want?
When I ask clients that, I usually get a blank stare or a confused look.
Want feels so...indulgent. So...self-involved. And what the heck does want have to do with anything anyway?
Without want there is no WILL.
When things get tough, you've got to have a want that's flashing so brightly in front of your face that you KEEP GOING.
It's so easy to wake up one day and realize you're living a life you don't even recognize. Getting clear on what you want not only helps you keep going when things get tough but determines the course of your life.
Maybe you know what you want but you're waiting to take action.
You've told yourself you don't have enough experience. Or training. Or knowledge. Or preparation. You should wait. It's the prudent thing to do.
Here's the truth: you'll never have "enough." You'll never walk into court feeling 100% prepared. You'll never feel you know everything there is to know. (At least I hope not. How boring!) "Enough" doesn't exist. It's a myth. It's a fantasy land you think exists if you'd only patiently wait for it to arrive.
You'll be waiting forever.
Stop waiting. Do it now. Whatever "it" is.
You Aren't Willing to Fail
What's the real reason you're waiting? Well, if you're like most people, you aren't willing to fail. You tell yourself it's because you aren't "enough,” but the real reason is you don't like failing.
Newsflash: no one like to fail! But being willing to fail is the key to moving to the next level of your development. If you want to up your game at trial, you've got to put your fear aside and willingly put yourself out there and give up your excuses.
Start wanting. Stop waiting. Be willing to fail. Get out of your own way and watch as your life, and trial practice, transforms before your very eyes.
How do you help jurors understand the difference between economic and non-economic damages?
On one hand, jurors want a formula, but on the other hand, formulas often backfire. For example, it’s not unusual to watch a mock jury deliberate and hear someone say, “Well, they’re asking for $10,000,000. This guy will live 23 more years according to their experts. So let’s see. Ten million divided by 23 is about $435,000. Divide that by 12 and that's…holy hell that’s over $36,000 a month!”
This is dangerous.
So how do we navigate this in trial? I firmly believe that you need to tell jurors how to calculate damages. So many attorneys throw up their hands and say, “No one can tell you how to do this, you just have to rely on your judgment.” Uh, big mistake. As David Ball says, if you tell the jury that no one can tell them how to calculate damages, they hear: “it can’t be done.”
Here’s how I often suggest handling it...
In voir dire, ask jurors about the difference between the price of something versus the value*. For example:
"Can something have value even if you paid very little for it?"
"What should happen if someone destroys something “priceless?”
"How do we, as a society, make it up to that person?"
"Why are some things valued very high in our society, say, a Picasso or a basketball player, and other things aren’t?"
In opening, tie economic damages to price, and non-economic damages to value. You know jurors will want to use a calculator so tell them when that is appropriate. Say:
“Economic damages is where you can get your calculator out. This is where you look at ‘price.’ How much will it cost to get the plaintiff back on his feet? What accommodations will he need? How much will medical care cost? This is the easier part of your job. You just look at the receipts, the bills, the reports and add it all up."
You can then continue:
"The hard part of your job, however, is non-economic damages. This is where you determine value. You won’t be able to use a calculator here. There is no formula. This is where you have to decide how much value to place on something like no longer being able to walk your daughters down the aisle. Or no longer being able to do simple things like change a lightbulb without asking your neighbor for help.”
But don't stop there. In closing say:
“Now here’s how we came up with the non-economic number.” Walk the jurors through your process. Tell the jury how you came up with the number but continue to tie it to value and not price.
The minute you start talking about how much things cost, you're in the “price” zone. You've got to get jurors into the “value” zone when discussing non-economic damages.
There’s no perfect way to help the jury with non-economic damages, but I do think jurors need more help than we often give. So help the jury by first, explaining the difference between the two types of damages, and then, helping them understand your reasoning for the non-economic number.
*Thank you to John Coletti who, along with Paul Luvera, developed this method and allowed me to share it.
What's the first thing you do when you screw up?
Well, if you're like most people, you try to forget it as fast as possible.
I've talked a lot about failure in this space and on my podcast, but the only way to really learn from your failure and grow as a trial attorney (or anything else) is to feel your way into it.
Here's an example:
A trial attorney came out to work with me last month. During his opening statement to our mock jury, something went wrong and instead of course correcting, I could see his inner critic take over. The opening got choppier and choppier and when he ended, I could tell he felt badly about his performance.
It would have been very easy to try and make him feel better. I could have told him it was fine. I could have reminded him about what a good trial attorney he is. I could have switched gears and done a new activity to build his confidence.
Instead I did nothing. I let him feel his failure. I didn't argue with him when he said he felt it went terribly. I just let him be with what he was feeling.
When he was ready, we watched the video of the opening and processed our way through it. We then tried the opening again, and this time, I watched him perform more passionately than I'd ever seen him perform before.
Here's what's important: When the attorney sat with his disappointment, he eventually realized, on his own, that it was his inner critic that caused his opening to go awry. He wasn't broken, ineffective or untalented. He just let his inner critic take over for a moment and, by really feeling what that was like, he decided he never wanted to do that again.
Had he ran away from his failure, he wouldn't have recognized what actually happened during his opening. He would have instead told himself to just work harder, when in reality, he didn't need to work harder at all. He just needed to ignore his inner critic the next time it started yapping at him when he made a minor "mistake."
When we attempt to run away from our pain, we don't learn. The first step to greatness is to be willing to fail. But merely failing is not enough. You need to feel your way into it.
Here's a podcast episode that talks about this in more depth.
noun. a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.
Are you using the devil's advocate question in voir dire? No? Well pull up a chair, 'cause you're gonna want this in your repertoire.
I've been playing with the devil's advocate question for several years now and have found it to be an absolute must in my voir dire arsenal.
Here is the basic gist:
A devil's advocate question is where you ask the jurors a question that exposes a defense argument.
For example, say you have an overserving case. A bar overserved a customer, that customer drove drunk, and someone was killed.
The defense may say things like:
"We didn't force him to drink."
"He wasn't obviously intoxicated."
A devil's advocate question then would sound like this:
"Yeah, but, what about personal responsibility? No one poured the drinks down his throat."
"But could the bar really do anything? He didn't seem intoxicated."
You take a defense argument and turn it into a question.
But, you have to be careful. For example, NEVER use a devil's advocate question until you've rallied the jurors to your side.
For example, you wouldn't say:
"This is an overserving case. Which means a bar overserved a customer, and that customer drove drunk and killed someone. Who here thinks the bar couldn't do anything if he didn't seem intoxicated?"
Aack! No. You might as well pack up and go home with that question.
Instead, you want to ask the jurors if they think bars can play a part in preventing drunk driving. You want to ask why that's important. You want ask the jurors if bars should be held responsible when someone they overserved hurts or kills someone else.
And, depending on how they answer (ie, if they are "with" you) you can THEN play devil's advocate with:
"Yeah, but, what about personal responsibility? No one poured the drinks down his throat."
Here's why this works: once someone communicates an opinion, if you challenge that opinion it strengthens their conviction that they're right.
Social science backs me up on this. See this article and this one and this one.
The devil's advocate question allows you to both a) bring up a defense point and b) strengthen the opinions of favorable jurors all in one.
Just make sure you only use the Devil's Advocate Question if the jury is firmly rallied around your idea or the question can backfire.
Click here to listen to my podcast on the Devil's Advocate Question.
We are all about beginnings and endings.
It's exciting to start a new project or finally reach a long-term goal.
But whether it's weight loss, saving a certain amount of money or becoming a better trial attorney, the magic is in the middle.
The middle, however, isn't as exciting as the beginning or end. It's not fun to try things and fail. It's not super sexy to not be great at something the first time you try it.
But the middle is where you change and grow, and if you don't stop to enjoy the process of reaching your goal, you'll miss the best part.
For example, I'm on a journey to lose weight. Sure, it will be nice to reach my goal weight eventually, but I'm loving the journey.
I know it's hard to believe, but I am actually enjoying the entire process of losing weight.
I'm learning how to love myself at any size. I'm learning how to show up for myself when I'd rather quit. I'm learning to keep commitments to myself. In other words, I'm becoming the person I want to be NOW instead of waiting until I hit my goal.
How many of you embrace the journey to becoming the best trial attorney you can be? Although it can be hard at times, I'm telling you, what you're learning NOW is where it's all at.
We all want to believe there's a pot of gold waiting for us at the end of the rainbow. We tell ourselves that once we meet our goal THEN we'll finally be happy. The problem is, it doesn't work that way.
Results don't bring happiness. Effort does. Doing the work to lose weight, save money, become a trial attorney is where the happiness is but most of us miss it because we're so focused on the end result.
The journey is way more fun than the destination, but only if you embrace the magic in the middle.
I know it seems like you are doing an endless number of things both before trial and during.
But when it comes to communication, you're really only doing three things.
Teaching, storytelling and dealing with resistance.
Teaching is where you impart information. You teach throughout trial. For example, if your case involves angiograms, you begin your teaching in voir dire by asking jurors about their familiarity with specific medical terms in your case.
"Who here has any familiarity with angiograms?"
"Was your father's angiogram that you just mentioned diagnostic (performed to diagnose a problem) or interventional (performed to fix a medical issue)?" Etc.
You teach in opening when you tell the jury what angiograms are and how they're used.
"An angiogram is where the doctor punctures the femoral artery..."
"There are two types of angiograms. Diagnostic and interventional. Diagnostic angiograms are performed when..." Etc.
But you also teach in closing when you show the jury how to fill out the verdict form and clarify what the legal terms mean.
And during trial? Your expert witnesses teach on the stand.
You begin storytelling in voir dire by listening to the juror's stories and experiences. You continue storytelling by telling two stories in opening: the story of how the defendant caused the harm, and the story of the effect of that harm on the plaintiff.
But you also tell a story in closing; the story of the plaintiff, projected into the future, where they received no help from the jury.
And during trial? Your lay witnesses tell stories on the stand.
Deal with Resistance
You deal with resistance in voir dire by discussing the very things that are detrimental to your case.
You deal with resistance in opening when you undermine the defense arguments. And in closing you deal with resistance when you teach the jury how to deal with resistance from fellow jurors in the verdict room.
And in trial? You deal with resistance when you conduct your cross exam of the defense's witnesses.
Why is This Important?
It's important to understand the three things you're doing at trial for two main reasons:
First, it helps simplify things. If you know you're teaching, storytelling or dealing with resistance, you can organize your content that way so that it all comes together at the various points at trial.
Second, it informs what body language you should use. Teaching requires you adhere to presentation rules: proper stance, gestures, visuals, etc. When you're storytelling, however, you throw those rules out. Now you can and should "act." Bring the characters to life.
And when you deal with resistance? Adopt the same tone of voice jurors might use should they vocalize their thoughts out loud. "Shouldn't he have told someone?" they might be thinking in a sex abuse case. So say it, just like they'd think it, with proper inflection. This creates a connection between you and the jurors.
Trial can be overwhelming. Simplify your communication by focusing on these three things.
If you've conducted a voir dire that gets jurors interested in the principles in your case, then your jury should be eagerly anticipating your opening to learn more.
Don't blow this chance to inform and inspire jurors by making these three mistakes:
Too Long. Most opening statements are too long.
When your opening is too long, jurors get bored. Opening should be a preview of the evidence and jurors should be left wanting more after you're done. In addition, you want to "hum the tune" of your trial theme in opening so that as the other players (witnesses) sing that tune throughout trial (badly, and often out of tune), jurors remember the original. When you're opening is too long, jurors forget the original song and you start to lose them.
Too Complex. Most opening statements are too complex.
When your opening is too complex, jurors get confused. Names, dates, medical terms the jurors don't understand, stories out of order, tons of visuals...all of these things add to a juror's confusion. When jurors get confused, they go inside to try and figure it out, which means they stop listening to you. If they do figure it out, they'll miss the last few minutes of content you delivered, and if they don't figure it out, they feel stupid.
Too Legal. Most opening statements are too legal.
When your opening is too legal, jurors don't care. And I'm not just talking about legalese either. I'm talking about words like "vehicle" instead of "car." Or "collision" instead of "crash." When you use this type of language no matter how "off code" you're trying to be, you clearly communicate to jurors, "I am a lawyer."
Instead, create an opening that is short, simple and sane.
Short. Condense your opening as much as possible. Short openings communicate, "this is a very simple case that can be decided easily." If you need a 2-hour opening, fine, but really make sure that's the case first.
Simple. Clarify terms for jurors. Remove names and dates. Use the lowest number of visuals you can get away with. Make it easy on jurors to follow along.
Sane. Clean up your language. Use "car," "crash" and other non-lawyer words. Talk like jurors talk.
When you make your opening short, simple and sane, you communicate to the jurors that you have confidence in your case. Half of what you throw into your opening you don't need. So ditch it. Jurors don't commit to content; they commit to people. So make sure your content isn't getting in the way of your connection to jurors.
Give this podcast a listen to learn more.
Have you ever been told you need to, "Own the space?"
What does that actually mean?
Let's first discuss what we mean by "space." We tend to think of space as what is contained within the four walls we're communicating in. But space is not contained by walls. You can enlarge or shrink the space, affecting how it feels to others.
By bringing awareness to it.
Have you ever gone out to eat with someone and felt as though they weren't "there?" One of two things are possible in that scenario: they are either in their head, shrinking the space so small that you feel left out, or they have taken in the entire restaurant into their awareness making you feel lost in it.
How you think about space affects how it feels.
Most presenters, when standing in front of an audience, are in their heads, and it shows. When you're thinking about your content or nervous about what you're about to say, you appear small and constricted to others.
However, when you expand your sense of space, bringing in the entire room and its occupants, and maybe even the hallway outside or the entire building, you expand. You appear large and in charge to others.
But you not only have to increase your awareness of space, you have to move as though you belong there.
That means no side-stepping, no backing up, and no sashaying. (But do send video if you do this.) Just turn and walk normally. Use big gestures and pausing. This communicates to jurors, "I belong here. This is my space. Welcome."
And THAT is what it means to "own the space." Even if you are, however briefly, borrowing it from the judge. ;)
To learn more, give this podcast a listen.
Only seven, you ask?
I know you aren't trying to annoy jurors, (at least I hope not) but there are certain things that you may be doing that are out of your awareness. Let's look at what they are.
#1: Using the hobby question. You want to "warm jurors up." I get it. But asking about hobbies makes light of the situation. No juror wakes up to a jury summons in the mail and thinks, "Ooh goodie! I can't wait to go have a relationship with Mr. or Ms. Attorney!" Avoid this question, at least at the beginning. Jurors are hungry for information, so give it to them.
#2: Telling jurors how important they are. Look, jurors are important, but they sure don't feel important. They've been forced to come to court, shoved in a room and told to wait, corralled into the courtroom and told where to sit, and branded with a plastic sticker that reads: JUROR, telling other people to avoid them! Is it any wonder they roll their eyes when you stand up in front of them and tell them how important they are? Instead, show them. Listen to them. Which brings us to #3...
#3: Not listening. You tell jurors how important they are and that you want to hear from them, then as they speak you dart your eyes around the box, look at your watch or cut them off. Huh? Stop it. Listen to jurors. Intently and with focus. This is what shows them how important they are.
#4: Gimmicks. It's so tempting to try a gimmick you picked up at a seminar, but I implore you to reconsider. Jurors are on high alert for manipulation of any kind. Drop the gimmicks and back away slowly. You don't need them! You just need to show up authentically and let the jury see who you really are. That's it.
#5: Rewording what jurors say. In an attempt to practice "reflective listening" many of you, instead of repeating back what jurors say, reword what they said. This feels manipulative to jurors. If you want to clarify an answer, ask questions instead of rewording.
#6: Making jurors feel stupid. You inadvertently make jurors feel stupid in two ways: 1) you use terms the juror doesn't understand and 2) you ask "should" questions. Should questions are questions like, "What should the doctor have done?" If a juror doesn't know, uh oh. Instead use, "What were your expectations of the doctor?" And of course, always clarify terms before throwing them around so jurors can easily follow the discussion.
#7: Dumb explanations of bias or the jury selection process. Please avoid talking to jurors like they're in 3rd grade and don't understand bias. Instead, tell them about the principles in the case and discuss those principles. That's where you'll find bias, not by lecturing about it ahead of time.
You don't need to do any of the things above to win the hearts and minds of jurors. You just need you. Really.
Give this podcast a listen to learn more.
Last week we discussed the first thing you can read: permission.
Today let's look at the second thing you can read: what mode jurors are in.
Every single communication situation tends to fall into one of two buckets: Issue & Relationship.
You're either tending to the relationship or dealing with an issue when conversing with someone.
Likewise, people tend to be in issue or relationship mode, depending on the circumstance. You can read this nonverbally.
Issue-oriented communication looks like this:
Relationship-oriented communication looks like this:
We like the relationship-oriented jurors, don't we? They smile and nod and make us feel good. But the issue-oriented jurors are scary, aren't they? They stare and cross their arms and make us feel bad.
Stop making up stories.
Issue-oriented jurors are interested in logistics. "What's this about? Is it worth my time?" It doesn't mean they disagree with you.
Relationship-oriented jurors are simply being polite by nodding and smiling. It doesn't mean they agree with you.
Here is what this body language actually means:
Issue-oriented jurors are motivated by facts, evidence and logic.
Relationship oriented jurors are motivated by emotion, stories and the human element.
This means that if you have a primarily relationship-oriented jury, you need to use more relationship-oriented body language and tell more stories and use more emotion.
Conversely, if you have a primarily issue-oriented jury, use more issue-oriented body language and focus on facts and logic.
Stop trying to memorize hundreds of nonverbal cues and just focus on reading permission and what mode your jurors are in. This will allow you to focus on the job at hand instead of being distracted by irrelevant details.
As an expert in nonverbal intelligence, I am often asked how to accurately read a juror's body language.
Here's the short of it: you can't accurately read a juror's body language if what you're looking for is whether or not they'll vote your way.
But there are things you can read: permission and what mode jurors are in.
Let's discuss permission first.
Permission is how receptive someone is to you or your message. It's conveyed nonverbally. Meaning, even if someone says, "Yes, you may do that," you may not have their real permission.
For example, have you ever been in voir dire and asked a juror if you could ask them a question, and they say yes, but then you still have a hard time getting them to answer? They gave you verbal permission, but not real permission.
You can read permission by watching a juror's breathing. Is the juror sitting still, head resting on top of his shoulders, conversing easily? He's most likely breathing well. Conversely, is the juror sitting stiffly, shoulders up, having trouble finding words? She's most likely holding her breath or breathing shallowly.
When a juror holds his or her breath, they go into fight or flight mode. This means they're in survival mode and cannot be receptive to you or anyone else. This is why breathing is an indicator of permission.
Carefully watch a juror's breathing to gauge whether you have permission or not. You can also just tune into how the interaction feels: cold and stunted? You don't have permission. Warm and inviting? You most likely have permission.
Next week we'll discuss the second thing you can read: what mode jurors are in.
Until then, check out this podcast: How to Read Body Language.
In order to be truly great, you have to be willing to fail.
But failure doesn't help you learn if all you do is beat yourself up when you make a mistake.
If you want to take your communication to the next level, you have to stop wasting your mistakes.
What does wasting your mistakes mean?
You're going to make mistakes, so why not use them to your advantage?
Here are some steps you can take to help you learn from your mistakes instead of throwing away the opportunity you have to learn:
Use your mistakes to your advantage. Start really digging in when you make a mistake and use it as an opportunity to learn. Failing for failure's sake is a waste of time. Failing your way to greatness is possible when you learn from your mistakes.
Give this podcast a listen to learn more.
How much thought have you given to body language?
If you're like most people, not much.
And yet how you nonverbally communicate has the power to change everything.
If you want to change your results, you must change your body language.
Body language includes many things: what you do with your face, how you stand, how you gesture, what your voice sounds like, etc., but the easiest way to think about it is to separate the various nonverbal communication skills into four areas:
Today let's discuss body and voice.
Great communicators are highly skilled, but it's not just skill that makes them great. It's timing.
Great communicators know what skill to use when.
For example, there are two basic nonverbal types I teach: authoritative communication and approachable communication.
In nearly every communication situation you are either sending information or seeking it.
For example, if you get a Starbuck's coffee every day, you most likely say, "Tall, soy, light-foam latte," when you get to the cashier. (At least that's what I say.)
But if you miss your turn and end up in a Dutch Brother's parking lot, you might ask, "Do you guys serve soy lattes here?"
To be purposeful, use authoritative communication when sending information:
Additionally, use approachable communication when seeking information:
Want jurors to talk to you? BE APPROACHABLE. Want to communicate you're the leader? BE AUTHORITATIVE.
Using the right nonverbal communication at the right time has the power to change your results.
Give this podcast a listen to learn more.
Sari has been dubbed the "Attorney Whisperer" because of her unique ability to help attorneys communicate their real selves.