{"href":"http://player.captivate.fm/services/oembed?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplayer.captivate.fm%2Fepisode%2F3d9285a7-7dc9-4ba6-bc33-6279d9beb9f0","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Captivate.FM","provider_url":"https://www.captivate.fm","width":600,"height":200,"type":"rich","html":"","title":"77 \u2013 Gregory Cusimano \u2013 Understanding & Utilizing The Jury Bias Model","description":"In this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with trial lawyer and consultant Gregory Cusimano. As one of the authors of \u201chttps://www.trialguides.com/products/winning-case-preparation (Winning Case Preparation: Understanding Jury Bias),\u201d Gregory has conducted a plethora of research on why plaintiff\u2019s lawyers win and lose cases. He and Michael discuss his 10 part jury bias model in detail and how you can apply it to your own cases. \nThey start off the episode with Michael asking Gregory how he first got involved with this research. He explains how it began as an AAJ committee which he co-chaired with attorney David Winters. The committee was instated because there had been a trend of good lawyers losing good cases, and they wanted to understand why it was happening. After conducting around 1,000 focus groups on every case type imaginable, they developed the foundations of the jury bias model. \nGregory goes on to share how it didn\u2019t take long to identify the five common anti-plaintiff biases, which they called \u201cuntried issues.\u201d These are issues which are important to a jury, but not to the plaintiff\u2019s lawyer, so most lawyers would try the case without ever addressing them. The initial 5 untried issues included personal responsibility, suspicion, victimization, \u201cstuff\u201d happens, and \u201cblame the plaintiff.\u201d While some of these may seem obvious, Gregory explains why understanding these issues is critical for your case. \nMichael then asks Gregory what plaintiff\u2019s lawyers can do about these issues, which he admits was the much harder answer to find. In time, he was able to come up with the \u201c10 Commandments,\u201d or 10 decision-making events or aspects that tend to work. He emphasizes that these are in no way a fool-proof formula to win every case, but instead are a way to use social science to present your case in the best way possible. \nThe first (and incredibly important) step is to develop the trial story. The story should be discovered through jury research. Then, you frame your trial story to be consistent with the beliefs of the potential jurors in your venue. Gregory then eloquently ties in the concepts of Fundamental Attribution Error and Availability principle to explain how important framing and ordering of the facts is to the success of your case. \nThe next step is to elicit confirmation. Once you\u2019ve found through research what the jurors in your venue believe, you need to present the case in a way which is \u201chand in glove\u201d to what they already believe. When Michael asks Gregory how the lawyer should figure this out, his answer is fitting with the research he\u2019s done: concept focus groups. If the case warrants it, this is the gold standard in Gregory\u2019s opinion. If it\u2019s a smaller case or you don\u2019t have the funds to hire an outside consultant to hold the focus group, Gregory STRONGLY cautions against attempting to do it yourself. Instead, you should ask colleagues, friends, or family to participate in the process. This is because lawyers are already so invested in their own cases it\u2019s nearly impossible to not project your own biases to your mock jury. Lastly, it\u2019s important to remember that a focus group is qualitative, not quantitative research. A group of 10 is not a big enough sample size to conclude why you need a specific type of person on your jury. \nAnother \u201ccommandment\u201d is to \u201chead the norm.\u201d Gregory explains how this stems from the \u201cnorm principal,\u201d and when applied to trial it means if the conduct of the defendant is \u201caccording to the norm,\u201d juries are not likely to find liability. He shares an example of a case he had where a man was on the back of a garbage truck that crashed into another vehicle, amputating the man\u2019s leg. He thought the case was perfect, but he kept losing in every focus group and mock trial. Eventually, he realized even though men standing on the back of a garbage truck is incredibly...","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300,"thumbnail_url":"https://artwork.captivate.fm/80de4db6-da18-41b8-9643-156c5d06db25/tln-logo-itunes-1400.jpg"}