​Rachel, my colleague here at FORTE sent this article to me yesterday, titled, The Green Smoothie Problem: Why Others Don’t Buy Your Ideas. In it the author discusses a common problem using an analogy of offering someone a green smoothie:

“Imagine I just handed you a smoothie in a glass. ‘It’s a green smoothie. Wanna drink it?’
 
If you’ve never seen or heard of a smoothie like that, you’d react in one of two ways:

1. You’d anchor to things you already understand to be similar. ‘Oh, I saw this at the gym once. It’s like, grass or something. Gross!’ Or maybe, ‘This looks like a children’s drink. It’s gonna be too sugary for me. No thanks.’
2. You’d look for social proof that says it’s a good drink. ‘Do people really drink this? Do the studies show it’s good to drink? Are celebrities endorsing this? Is there a green smoothie case study I can see?’

 
Simply by handing you the smoothie, I’ve immediately put you at an information disadvantage. As a result, you anchor to a past precedent or try to draw confidence from others in order to fill in the gaps in your knowledge as quickly as possible. If my goal is to get you to drink the smoothie, I’ve done a rather poor job. I’ve merely handed you the drink and left you to do all the reasoning to influence your decision.
 
But if I really wanted to influence your decision, what if I shared the reasoning too?
 
What if, rather than simply hand you the smoothie, I laid out the details of how I came up with it?”
 
I was immediately struck by how the Green Smoothie Problem applies to voir dire. So often attorneys will begin voir dire by asking questions and offer no context or reasoning for why they are asking. Jurors, who are already at a disadvantage by having the least amount of information in the room, are immediately put on the defensive; if they don’t understand why you’re asking the question, they are afraid that whatever answer they give may be the “wrong” one.
 
Giving context helps put jurors at ease and helps you get more information. Which is why I suggest always giving a “context statement” before asking a question, or set of questions, in voir dire.
 
For example, if your case involves a car crash, before asking jurors, “Who here has ever been in a car crash?” Simply state, “This case involves a car crash.” If the case involves a hospital, before asking people about their experiences with hospitals, say, “This case involves a hospital.”
 
Other context statement examples include:
 
“In this case, someone was injured in a car crash.”
 
“In this case, there is a disagreement about what caused the crash.”
 
“This case involves an insurance claim that was not paid.”
 
Etc.
 
Attorneys who hear this advice for the first time will often say to me, “But the judge reads a statement of the case before voir dire begins! Why repeat that info?”
 
The answer is twofold. One, the statement by the judge is read in its entirety, where voir dire will examine various aspects of a juror’s belief piece by piece. Two, the person who has the most information is the most powerful person in the room. Why leave that power sitting in the judge’s lap? Giving jurors context as you work your way through voir dire increases your credibility while empowering the jury at the same time. It’s win/win.
​
To learn more about my trial method, visit my Trial Tips page to watch videos on various trial topics, or subscribe to my newsletter to receive these blogs and videos directly into your inbox.