OTLA Trial Lawyer Fall 2020

44 Trial Lawyer • Fall 2020 Plaintiff ’s damages We introduced the plaintiff ’s damages both at the beginning of our presentation and the end. The initial reaction of the students was mixed. Some students believed the numbers were exag- gerated, while others could not put a price on their health. We witnessed bi- ases that were unanticipated. In some ways, this portion of the focus group was consistent with a traditional focus group. To further explain the damages, we shared the life care planner’s estimated future losses to plaintiff. We revealed key evidence we anticipate using at trial. At this point, we believed we had presented some of our best evidence to justify the plaintiff ’s damages. However, we learned some of our best demonstra- tives needed the most work. For example, a video of the plaintiff we had prepared was not as touching as we thought. Some of the participants connected to her dogs tionale — we all know it takes one juror who is more educated than the rest to take the lead and ultimately color the whole jury pool’s opinion on the verdict. We had 29 participants who could be that juror. We began the focus group confident the testimony would sway the students toward the plaintiff, but the participants’ reaction was exactly the opposite. This more than they connected with the plaintiff ’s grim circumstances illustrated in the video, while others fixated on minor details in the background. The result was a combination of high and low damages assigned to the plaintiff. The law students explained why they assigned those damages in their respective verdict forms, which ultimately helped us assess the value of each piece of evi- dence presented Witness testimony Key testimony clips from depositions were presented to the group. Following the videos, it became apparent the law students identified with specific compo- nents of the video depositions that we didn’t expect. We found the jurors’ edu- cation level was directly related to why they identified with those specific com- ponents. We took this portion of the focus group very seriously — it gener- ated a discussion that completely changed the direction of the case. Here is the ra- Law Students Continued from p 43 The students’ eager nature results in vigorous questioning of the evidence presented, which requires the attorney to rethink the purpose of the evidence intended to be presented at trial and employ a di f f erent approach i f necessary.