|
 |
The Invisible Culture Of The Jury
by Dale C. Howe |
Jurors seek to find meaning in the facts. They accomplish this by sifting the facts through their invisible cultural grid. Understanding the range of cultures assists in developing and presenting demonstrative evidence that relates to every member of the panel.
TRIBAL JURORS are traditionalists. They value the honor of being selected and will not act in any way that disgraces the jury. They are embarrassed when others are disrespectful or blasphemous.
WARRIOR JURORS prefer action to words. They see deliberations as a battle to be won or lost. They despise weakness and will follow only those perceived as stronger. They draw a “line in the sand” and will not compromise.
DUTIFUL JURORS are the ideal panel members. They seek to do what is right, they respect authority, they are willing to fulfill duty and responsibility, they will sacrifice for the good of others, they put principle before personal preference, and they are governed by clear thinking rather than emotion or impulse.
MAVERICK JURORS are not team players. They are more concerned about personal time and resources than about the legal process. They do not tolerate ineffectiveness or inefficiency (which is by nature part of the jury process) and feel suffocated when they believe there are too many rules and regulations.
EMPATHETIC JURORS are a plaintiff’s dream team. They form an immediate resonance with anyone who has been victimized, and want to help the injured recover. They refuse to be a party to exploitive, uncaring, or insensitive behavior.
READ FULL ARTICLE
Used by Permission. © Dale C. Howe, Visual Persuasion
www.campbellchadwick.com |
|
Medical Illustrations: Eye of the Juror
by Shane Godfrey, LVLV Medical Illustrator |
|
|
 The last hundred years has been what seems to be a quantum leap in the way the human culture exchanges information due to exponential advances in technology.
Television became commercially available in the 1930's, the internet blossomed in the 1990's and the combination of these two formats has blasted advertising to new heights. It should come as no surprise then that many studies have shown that the general population is approximately 65% visual, 20% auditory and 15% kinesthetic when it comes to retaining information. This information has increasingly lead attorneys down the road of visual presentations, such as the one shown above,
in order to effectively communicate to a modern jury.
|
|
Courtroom Technology
By Fredric I. Lederer, Tom O'Connor, and Timothy A. Piganelli |
|
|
Increasingly, administrative, civil, and even criminal cases are being presented with technology. Technology-based evidence presentation is substantially faster than traditional methods, and many agree that it also does a better job of presenting information. Technology permits courtroom options not otherwise possible. For example, videoconferencing allows remote witness testimony as well as remote foreign language and American Sign Language interpretation. Some judges, especially those who preside in high-technology courtrooms, may even require technology for certain tasks.
 Solos and small firm lawyers sometimes dismiss the use of case presentation technology, reasoning that they lack adequate resources to use it, but this assumption is erroneous. True, equipment rental is expensive, but the most basic form of courtroom presentation technology—a document camera and a projector—can be purchased for less than $3,000, a cost that can be amortized over many different cases and clients. Adding a laptop computer to the system gives counsel even greater opportunities. Relatively inexpensive programs such as PowerPoint (www.microsoft.com), Presentations (www.corel.com), Acrobat (www.adobe.com), even Word and WordPerfect all can be used for case presentations, and a dedicated software solution such as TrialDirector (www.indatacorp.com), Sanction (www.sanction.com), or CaseMap (www.casemap.com) gives even greater options. Furthermore, an increasing number of courts are themselves providing much of the technology you will need.
So, is it time to introduce more technology into your next case presentation?
Published in GP Solo, Volume 25, No. 4, June 2008.
Copyright © 2008 by the American Bar Association. Reprinted with permission. |
|
| |
|
