Recent Research:

Our Data Confirms:
Enhancing Corporate Image Through Direct Exam

The courtroom is ripe with expectations. Plaintiffs expect to be compensated for a wrong done to them. Defendants expect to be vindicated. Attorneys for both sides expect to win. Judges expect to follow the law. Jurors expect to decipher the truth and dispense justice. Deciphering the truth is tricky business and jurors, whether consciously or not, rely largely upon their expectations about how a truthful person acts compared to how a dishonest person acts. When one of the parties is a corporate defendant, jurors' expectations about corporate America and corporate executives inevitably come into play.

Jurors have expectations that work against both parties in a lawsuit involving a corporate defendant. A recent national survey conducted by ZMF with jury-eligible Americans showed that 79% of respondents believe corporate executives will lie to increase profits - an anxiety provoking statistic for any corporate defendant walking through courtroom doors. On the other hand, the same survey reveals that 77% of respondents also believe that all too often individuals will blame their own problems on a corporation and 72% believe large damage awards do nothing but make lawyers rich. Once testimony begins in a trial, jurors will start analyzing witnesses to see if each individual fits within his or her expectation, or stereotype.

A witness' behavior on the stand will either meet or violate expectations-whichever direction it goes, the result can help or hurt the corporate defendant. Obviously, meeting expectations that a corporate defendant will lie or skirt responsibility for misconduct could result in a plaintiff verdict and high damages. Conversely, violating jurors' expectations in a positive direction can greatly enhance juror perception, giving the defendant a positive bounce. This article suggests five strategies corporate defendants can use during direct examinations to enhance jurors' perception, to get that
"positive bounce."