June 12, 2019

Jeffrey T. Frederick, PhD

Using Social Media News Posts in Jury Selection (and More)

                                

            It is becoming fairly commonplace for trial consultants, attorneys, and other entities to search for potential jurors’ social media presence.  However, limiting internet investigations of potential jurors to traditional “Google searches,” Westlaw or similar databases, and searches of social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, among others, misses an underutilized, but important resource—news media postings on social media.  Whether your case is criminal or civil, monitoring and storing relevant posts in their entirety is a must.  This applies to both highly publicized and the not-so-highly publicized case.  (Those in the latter category—hang tough.  We will get there.)

Some Basics About News Media Posting on Social Media

            We will consider primarily news media Facebook posts as they tend to be more informative and the usernames are more easily matched to potential jurors.  However, some limited information can be derived from tweets (e.g., opinions/comments), if the potential juror’s twitter username is known.  When a news source posts to its Facebook page, there are several types of information potentially available.  First, there are the “reactions” to the post itself (Facebook currently offers five “reactions,” i.e., like, love, wow, angry, sad, and haha/laughing). Second, there are “shares” of the post to other Facebook users with those users having the opportunity to comment/reply and register a reaction.  Third, there are the comments and replies to comments associated with the post. Finally, readers can register their reactions to both the comments and replies.  Consider the following example involving a recent post on The Virginian-Pilot Facebook page regarding the filing of a lawsuit over the death of an inmate.

Read More

 February 19, 2019

Jeffrey T. Frederick, Ph.D.

Mastering Group Voir Dire: Tip 10—Don’t Let Jurors Hide

            So far, our Tips series has focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3), capitalizing on open-ended questions to increase our understanding of jurors (Tip 4), avoiding the “looking good” bias (Tip 5), crafting questions with the “bad” answer in mind (Tip 6), using questions that contrast viewpoints or positions (Tip 7), the need to intersperse majority response questions to foster continued participation (Tip 8), and using the springboard method to encourage participation (Tip 9).  Our next tip addresses the silent or “hiding” juror who seeks to avoid participation during voir dire. (Click here to see a short video for this tip.)

Read More

December 11, 2018

Jeffrey T. Frederick, Ph.D.

Mastering Group Voir Dire: Tip 9—Employ the Springboard Method

            So far, our Tips series has focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3), capitalizing on open-ended questions to increase our understanding of jurors (Tip 4), avoiding the “looking good” bias (Tip 5), crafting questions with the “bad” answer in mind (Tip 6), using questions that contrast viewpoints or positions (Tip 7), and the need to intersperse majority response questions to foster continued participation (Tip 8).  Our next tip addresses the springboard method of questioning that enhances juror participation during voir dire. (Click here to see a short video for this tip.)

Fostering Participation

            As I have stressed throughout this series, we need to employ approaches and methods that maximize juror participation and candor during the voir dire process.  We started questioning by employing the initial background summary in Tip 2 and employed the initial hand-raising technique in Tip 3 to encourage participation at the beginning of voir dire.   Our focus on participation shifted in Tip 8 to the inclusion of majority response questions to counteract nonparticipation tendencies inherent in traditional voir dire questioning.  There is a potentially more effective method to maintain and increase participation—the springboard method.

Read More

November 21, 2018

Jeffrey T. Frederick, Ph.D.

Dr. Frederick’s ABA Books on Jury Selection Part of 40% Off Cyber Monday Sale

Cyber Monday Sale – 40% Off + Free Shipping

Shop and save one day only with promo code CYBER18 on books, eBooks, and on-demand CLE products.

Cyber Monday - November 26

Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/products/publishing/cybermonday2018/

If you need any assistance purchasing a product, please call the Service Center at (800) 285-2221.

ALSO, DON’T FORGET: Dr. Frederick will be presenting a free 60-minute program based on his book, “Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection: Gain an Edge in Questioning and Selecting Your Jury,” for the ABA Solo Small Firm and General Practice Division’s November 21, 2018, session of Hot Off the Press telephone conference/podcast at 1 p.m. EST.  There is no registration or fee required.  All you have to do is call the Dial-In Number and use the Conference ID listed below.

Read More

“I read your '8 Tips for Group Voir Dire' and thought it was one the best trial technique articles I have read. I really enjoyed it and will use the ideas in teaching my law school class.” - Roy Black, Esquire Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.

 

November 14, 2018

Jeffrey T. Frederick, Ph.D.

Mastering Group Voir Dire: Tip 8—Intersperse Majority Response Questions

Associated Press 2012

            So far, our Tips series has focused on setting the stage for effective voir dire (Tip 1; Tip 2; and Tip 3), capitalizing on open-ended questions to increase our understanding of jurors (Tip 4), avoiding the “looking good” bias (Tip 5), crafting questions with the “bad” answer in mind (Tip 6), and using questions that contrast viewpoints or positions (Tip 7).  Our next tip addresses asking questions later in voir dire where the majority of jurors will raise their hands. (Click here to see a short video for this tip.)

The Declining Participation Trap

            A major problem often encountered during group voir dire is the tendency for participation by jurors to decline as questioning continues.  This decline in participation is a result of two major forces.  First, the way voir dire is conducted and the type of questions often asked tend to seek minority responses. That is, we are interested in nontypical information, and, as a result, only a few, if any, jurors respond affirmatively to these questions. Consider the following:

            “How many of you have had a negative experience with law enforcement?”

            “How many of you have been a party to a lawsuit?”

            These types of questions focus on a likely minority of jurors who have had certain experiences or hold certain beliefs. This situation is further exacerbated by phrases that unnecessarily promote expectations of nonparticipation (and, potentially, negative connotations).  Such phrasing is illustrated in the following approaches:

Read More