Montana Lawyer June/July 2025

Instead of an ‘objective observer,’ the brain is a prediction machine that constantly projects its expectations and predictions on the world around it, only taking note when those expecta tions and predictions prove wrong. From the litigator’s perspective, there is nothing worse than the feeling that the facts do not matter in your case because jurors are going to want to believe something else. It is the feel ing of powerless that might come after a mock trial gone south or war stories from colleagues who lost cases that had “strong facts.” In this month’s column, we want to identify two practi cal steps litigators can take to break through these beliefs and expectations to regain control of the story of the case. Violate jurors’ expectations. This is the first and most important step and cannot be emphasized enough as a criti cal strategy for tackling the stubbornness of post-pandemic jurors. We start by going back to Andy Clark’s book where he describes the brain as a prediction machine, only interact ing with the “objective world” when our expectations and predictions require adjustment. While it was not written as a strategy or advice book, the obvious conclusion is that viola tions of expectations are key to getting someone’s attention and changing their views. Consequently, litigators should identify the problematic expectations jurors bring to the deliberation room (ideally through focus group or mock trial research) and look for ways to immediately violate those expectations. We have previously written about the example of an alternative damages strategy for corporate defendants in admitted liability cases. Jurors come to the courtroom in these cases expecting the corporate defendant to try to pay as little as possible, nickel and diming the plaintiff at every opportunity. Consequently, an alternative damages strategy focused around the theme of “how can money help the plaintiff,” combined with several specific (and generous) examples in closing argument of how money can help the plaintiff, often violates jurors expecta tions. Whereas they were expecting the corporate defendant to make all sorts of arguments for why it should not have to pay have always shaped the discussion in the deliberation room. However, we have noticed a recent trend of jurors clinging to their personal experiences and beliefs with an unprecedented level of stubbornness. One compelling explanation may be the widespread decline in trust in our society, which has been shown in research conducted by Pew Research Center and many other researchers. Americans have experienced a widespread decline in trust in every institution around them. Even the professions we have always thought to be made up of heroes such as doctors, nurses, and teachers, have come under immense scrutiny as more and more members of our society view them with suspicion. This is important because, as we struggle to trust the things around us, it is much easier to revert to our personal experiences and beliefs than it is to go through the much more rigorous process of determining whether we should trust a person or institution we do not know. Our personal experiences and beliefs are the truest things we have in the world, making it easier for them to win out in the face of the uncertainty that our growing distrust has created. 1.

much, this strategy presentation is all about how the plain tiff should be paid generously. Notably, the examples of how money can help the plaintiff can seem generous without adding up to significant numbers. In one of our recent cases involv ing the family members of the deceased plaintiff, the defense proposed, among other things, jurors set aside enough money for the family to take time to get away throughout the year to find moments of peace and create new memories. The defense proposed jurors set aside enough money for the family to get away 4-5 times a year and suggested $10K per getaway. $50K a year over ten years equates to $500K, which is insignificant to the $45M the plaintiff was asking for. The getaways were only one line item in a lengthy list the defendant proposed for how money could help the plaintiff, but they highlight how corpo rate defendants can violate jurors’ expectations. 2. Recognize the difference between legal logic and narrative logic. How do you know what jurors expect? How do you know which expectations to violate? Bank on jurors to rely on narrative logic. Legal logic is the applicable law that tells jurors how they are supposed to decide the case. Narrative logic is the story framework jurors apply to the case to make sense of it, which then gets projected onto the legal logic. Every case has parallel structures and the relationship between these two structures is essential to jurors caring about the legal logic. Compelling narrative logic will defeat strong legal logic most of the time. Research shows jury instructions are often ineffec tive and jurors will not hesitate to ignore the applicable law if they are motivated to do so. Yet, most litigators remain married to the strategy of proving their legal arguments rather than simply persuading jurors. In a recent mock trial, we watched the defense drown itself in efforts to prove its machinery broke down for reasons other than what the plaintiff alleged, when the plaintiff unreasonably struck the machine. While the different causes had legal relevance (in theory), the jurors did not care what about the cause because it was still the defendant’s machine that failed and caused the injury. Even worse, the defense focus on this technical argument overshad owed the much broader and simpler story of how the plaintiff idiotically struck the machine and caused his own injury. We see attorneys get caught up in these legalities, which jurors often deem trivial, all the time. It most often occurs on the defense side of the case, which only reinforces jurors’ expecta tions that corporate defendants rely on technicalities to evade responsibility. In short, it’s time to deprioritize the legal frame work of the case. After all, research shows 84% of millennials, the emerging population on juries, would go with their person al opinions over the law in a case where the judge’s instructions on the law were in conflict with those personal opinions. Compelling narrative logic will defeat strong legal logic most of the time.

Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D. is President of Sound Jury Consulting in Seattle, WA. Kevin R. Boully, Ph.D. is Senior Consultant at Perkins Coie in Denver, CO.

APRIL-MAY 2025

19

WWW.MONTANABAR.ORG