I occasionally get emails from vendors and people trying to sell me products or services. Today I received an email from a trial consultant, Harry Plotkin. He sent me an article titled, “WHY JURORS ROUTINELY IGNORE EXPERT WITNESSES.”

The article states as follows:

The most amusing part of watching mock jurors deliberate or discuss a case is the disconnect between jury decision-making and what the attorneys expect jurors to focus on. Jurors approach cases in ways that truly surprise--and, in some cases, frustrate--attorneys. In my experience, the jury phenomenon that most surprises attorneys is a juror's tendency to misunderstand and circumvent the jury instructions. Attorneys who expect jurors to conform their feelings to the jury instructions are often stunned when jurors deliver a surprising verdict. The reality is that jurors rarely conform to the jury instructions and usually twist the jury instructions (usually without meaning to) to match their feelings about justice and fairness.

But I digress. In my experience, a close second jury phenomenon that would surprise most attorneys is the jurors' distaste for, and dismissal, of expert witnesses. Too often, I see attorneys relying on experts to establish their arguments and persuade jurors. But in reality, jurors rarely view the opinions of expert witnesses as credible facts.

This is not to say that experts are useless. Far from it, experts are necessary to meet your legal, evidentiary burdens in the eyes of the court. Omitting an expert's opinion, while not necessarily fatal to the jury's verdict, may destroy your case on a directed verdict. But keep in mind that jurors don't view experts the same way that the court does. For many jurors, expert opinions are unnecessary and often not persuasive.

Once a juror has framed a case in their terms and decided which side's story seems more likely, revelations from an expert witness aren't going to change a juror's mind, even if that expert convincingly refutes what that juror believes to be true.

When an expert's opinion is in conflict with a juror's beliefs-- no matter how uninformed or without basis--a juror will likely reject that expert's opinion and find a way to justify dismissing the expert. When an expert's opinion matches what a juror already believed, the juror will use that expert to reinforce their beliefs and bolster their arguments in deliberation. Because this decision-making process is in direct violation of the way jurors are required to view evidence, attorneys are
understandably shocked when jurors seem to disregard brilliant experts. Oftentimes, jurors don't need opposing experts to dismiss an expert's opinion; in case after case, I have seen jurors manufacture "evidence" that neither side presented, based entirely on assumptions that the jurors believe to be likely.

You and I know that experts are bright and highly-trained, often professional and honest, and have spent vast amounts of time and detail studying the subject matter of a case. And yet jurors, who are far less knowledgeable than experts and spend only a few hours studying the subject matter, have two valid reasons for dismissing the opinions of experts: experts often don't seem credible, and experts aren't often understandable.

No matter how brilliant or thorough, an expert is only as valuable as he/she is believable, and jurors don't believe experts who rub them the wrong way. Attitude and demeanor are just as important as an expert's methods and opinion. Experts are often condescending or arrogant, defensive, evasive, or hostile during cross-examination, and often refuse to answer questions or seem to have an agenda during cross; jurors interpret these demeanors as evidence that the expert is being dishonest. Make sure that your experts' attitudes are just as unimpeachable as their testimony, and spend time working with them to ensure that they come across as friendly and cooperative during cross-examination. Jurors like transparency and want questions answered, not evaded. Tell your experts that their job is not to frustrate opposing counsel by curtly, smugly giving non-answers like "I couldn't answer that question," but rather to convince the jury that they are trying their best to seek the truth.

Just as destructive are experts who confuse or bore the jury. Never expect that jurors will accept an expert's opinion if they don't understand (and listen attentively to) his/her reasoning. If a juror doesn't understand what an expert is saying, the juror will tune the expert out and base his/her verdict on the evidence that he/she understood. Jurors don't have to disagree with an expert's opinion to render a verdict that directly contradicts it; jurors merely dismiss or ignore confusing experts they don't understand. OJ Simpson's criminal trial was the perfect illustration. The jurors were utterly confused (and skeptical of) the prosecution's DNA evidence, so rather than disagree with it, the jurors merely ignored it.

No matter how much time, effort, and money you have already spent on an expert, don't be reluctant to keep an expert on the sidelines in trial if the jurors are sick with boredom and seem to be fed up with day after day of expert testimony and techno-babble. Once your jurors become confused, they will probably lose focus and begin tuning out your experts, and you need to tune them back into your case or risk losing their attention and support.

Jurors respond well to common sense and principles they can understand and relate to, so make sure to put everything your experts say in the context of common sense. Force your experts to step down from the pedestal and use simple terms, analogies, and explanations your jurors can relate to. Jurors chafe when attorneys expect jurors to side with their case just because the experts say so; I find it helpful to put your experts in context in opening statements by telling your jurors "you don't have to be an expert to know that..." Present your experts as authorities who you've brought in to reinforce the obvious, not to spoon feed the jury.

Never make your arguments depend on what your experts have to say, because jurors can disregard and disagree with experts for reasons that you will never understand. Your experts will only persuade the jury if their opinions appeal to your jurors' common sense and what your jurors already believe to be likely and true.

With all that said, experts are persuasive to jurors in other, indirect ways. Although an expert will rarely change a juror's mind, they are often in the best position to arm jurors with useful information that can be used to persuade other jurors in deliberations. While a hostile juror will likely dismiss an opposing expert, that same juror can be persuaded by another juror who uses that expert's arguments. The group decision-making that goes on in jury deliberations is wildly different from the individual decision-making processes that go on in the minds of each juror. As I've mentioned in past jury tips, jury research seems to suggest that 85-90% of jurors will not change their minds between the end of opening statements– before the introduction of evidence--and the end of closing statements. Yet these same jurors can and do change their minds during deliberations, so be sure that your experts arm your receptive jurors with clear, persuasive arguments to use in deliberations.

I agree with some of Mr. Plotkin's opinions and conclusions. If you would like to read more of his thoughts, see http://www.yournextjury.com/

Labels: jury, lawyers, trial consultant

An article written by LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer addresses concern for doctors at risk for suicide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_he_me/doctor_suicides

CHICAGO - There's a grim, rarely talked-about twist to all that medical know-how doctors learn to save lives: It makes them especially good at ending their own. An estimated 300 to 400 U.S. doctors kill themselves each year — a suicide rate thought to be higher than in the general population, although exact figures are hard to come by.

Some doctors believe the stigma of mental illness is magnified in a profession that prides itself on stoicism and bravado. Many fear admitting psychiatric problems could be fatal to their careers, so they suffer in silence.

And when the pain is too much, doctors have easy access to prescription drugs and a precise knowledge of both how the body works and the amount of a drug needed for an overdose to stop breathing and halt the heart.

"All physicians have access to neat, clean ways to commit suicide," said Dr. Robert Lehmberg, a Little Rock, Ark., surgeon who has battled depression and long considered suicide "an exit strategy if absolutely necessary."

The American Medical Association has called physician suicide "an endemic catastrophe," and pledged two years ago to work to prevent the problem.

But the suicides have persisted. So the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention has launched an educational campaign in hopes of making troubled doctors more willing to seek help.

The foundation, the American College of Psychiatrists and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, a maker of antidepressant pills, paid for the program. It includes a documentary titled "Struggling in Silence" that begins airing on public television stations this week.

"It really has been swept under the carpet," said Dr. Paula Clayton, the suicide foundation's medical director.

The foundation says 300 to 400 doctors commit suicide each year, based on estimates from research, but that more studies are needed to get a more precise count.

Another estimate of 250 yearly comes from an online article by Dr. Louise Andrew and in American Medical News, an AMA publication. But a spokesman said the AMA doesn't track doctor suicides because accurate numbers aren't available.

Suicide figures in broader society are not completely reliable because suicide is often not given as the cause of death.

The overall U.S. suicide rate among men is four times higher than in women — about 23 per 100,000 versus about 6 per 100,000 in women, according to the most recent government data.

But among doctors, suicide rates are about equal for men and women.

A 28-state study from 1984-95 found women doctors were more than twice as likely as women in the general population to kill themselves. Men were more than 70 percent more likely inside the medical profession than overall to commit suicide.

One explanation is that most suicide attempts in the broader population are unsuccessful, while doctors know how to successfully commit suicide, said Dr. Erika Frank, who specializes in research on physician health.

Depression is often the problem.

Depressed doctors frequently decide to self-medicate but don't seek psychotherapy that could help them deal with underlying issues, said Dr. Glenn Siegel, who runs a suburban Chicago program that treats doctors with drug abuse, depression and other psychiatric problems.

"It's not a safe topic to be as open about in that profession because you're responsible for the well-being of others," Siegel said. "If you're admitting something like that, you're saying maybe you're not fit to do your job."

Adds Lehmberg, the Arkansas surgeon, who is featured in the documentary: "You just would rather take a risk with your health than your career. It's not like you get a second chance with it."

A psychiatrist in the New York area who asked to remain unidentified said he had suicidal thoughts every day for several years. But in medical school in the 1980s, he said he was so embarrassed about seeking help for depression that he went to a pay phone instead of his dorm to call a therapist.

Since then, some schools have begun teaching medical students about depression among doctors, but, he said in an interview, "so much more needs to be done."

Because the stigma persists, he said he didn't want his name used to avoid hurting his family and relationships with colleagues and patients.

Some studies have suggested depression is more common among doctors, especially women physicians, and that the high demands of a job dealing with life-and-death issues makes them prone.

But Frank questions that and said she worries that singling out physicians risks "pathologizing" a profession whose members generally "have it awfully good."

"I think the situation gets portrayed as far more grave than it really is for physicians compared to anyone else in the world," Frank said.

There could be reasons why the stigma would be worse for doctors, "but you can come up with just as many reasons why physicians would be better equipped to acknowledge" mental illness, she said.

"We've all done psychiatric training. We all know bad mental health outcomes happen to good people," she said.

A study in Denmark, published last year, found more suicides in doctors than among more than 20 other professions, including nurses, factory workers, elementary school teachers, corporate managers and architects.

But there are few comprehensive studies on suicides among U.S. doctors.

Some have been based on newspaper obituaries, which are "flawed at best" because suicide often isn't listed as a cause of death, said Dr. Morton Silverman, a University of Chicago suicide expert.

New Jersey physician Ron Brown suffered from depression and killed himself in 2002. His widow, Mumtaz Bari-Brown, said she believes the stigma kept her husband from getting help in time to save his life.
As a boy, Brown had been told his father died of a heart attack, not the real cause of suicide, the widow said.

"We have to stop the hiding and the ignorance and recognize it as a disease like high blood pressure or diabetes," said Bari-Brown, who also is featured in the new documentary.

Dr. G. Richard Smith, Lehmberg's doctor and director of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences' psychiatric research institute, said doctors need assurance they won't risk their jobs if they seek psychiatric help.

Smith succeeded in getting changes to questions on medical license applications in Arkansas that he believes will help. The old application asked doctors if they were being treated for mental illness or ever had been. A "yes" answer required a psychiatrist's note declaring they were fit to practice medicine. Now, they need only disclose mental health treatment that was advised or required by medical authorities.

The previous form didn't keep doctors with psychiatric problems from practicing, Smith said. But it did keep "doctors who needed treatment from getting the treatment that they needed."

On the Net:

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: http://www.doctorswithdepression.org

AMA: http://www.ama-assn.org

Mon May 12, 6:52 PM ET

A New York man who says he was denied a seat on a five-hour jetBlue flight and was instead told to "hang out" in the plane's bathroom has sued the airline for $2 million, saying he suffered "extreme humiliation."

When Gokhan Mutlu arrived to check in for a jetBlue flight from San Diego to New York in February he was told the flight was full, according to the lawsuit filed in New York State Supreme Court.

But Mutlu was allowed to board after a jetBlue flight attendant agreed to give up her seat and travel in an airline employee "jump seat." It was not clear in the lawsuit whether the flight attendant was working.

However 90 minutes into the flight, the pilot told Mutlu the flight attendant was uncomfortable and he would have to give up his seat and "hang out" in the bathroom for the remainder of the flight, the lawsuit said.

The pilot "became angry at (Mutlu's) reluctance" and said Mutlu "should be grateful for being onboard," the lawsuit said. When Mutlu volunteered to sit in the "jump seat," he was told it was reserved for airline personnel.

At one point, the airplane experienced turbulence and Mutlu sat on the toilet seat without a seat belt, causing him "tremendous fear," the lawsuit said.

JetBlue was not immediately available for comment.

(Reporting by Edith Honan, editing by Michelle Nichols and Todd Eastham)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_airline_toilet_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AirN0nvZuHS8OKDKOjaWAwoXIr0F