Atlanta, Georgia Personal Injury Lawyer
Edward P. Schwartz, a trial consultant in Lexington, Massachusetts wrote an article May 19, 2008 in LawyersUSAonline.com. His article noted that there has been many businesses/consultants offering online mock trial feedback. Online mock trials have been touted as quick, convenient and inexpensive alternatives to traditional mock juries. However, I agree with Mr. Schwartz that they cannot offer nearly the quality of feedback as a traditional mock trial.
As Mr. Schwartz noted, “How does one simulate a highly personal, interactive and collaborative process with an anonymous, passive and solitary methodology?” I have looked into these tools and it is my feeling that they may offer some value as to how individuals react to the case, it won’t offer feedback as to how a group of people - a jury would react. Mr. Schwartz refers to the difference as “the interactive nature of true jury deliberations.”
With the lower “online trial”, a lawyer uploads photos, diagrams, and a fact pattern. People are paid to read the facts, look at the photos, and offer feedback. Some of the more sophisticated online vendors offer text communications from other jurors in real time. However, this system doesn’t compare to real life when you have to justify your position in front of a group. As some behavioral psychologists have noted, 90% of communication is non-verbal. Thus, the text offers some feedback on what the individuals think - it doesn’t do a great job of imitating group behavior.
Mr. Schwartz describes the process as providing online focus groups rather than online mock trials. Mr. Schwartz’s website is located at www.eps-consulting.com.
As Mr. Schwartz noted, “How does one simulate a highly personal, interactive and collaborative process with an anonymous, passive and solitary methodology?” I have looked into these tools and it is my feeling that they may offer some value as to how individuals react to the case, it won’t offer feedback as to how a group of people - a jury would react. Mr. Schwartz refers to the difference as “the interactive nature of true jury deliberations.”
With the lower “online trial”, a lawyer uploads photos, diagrams, and a fact pattern. People are paid to read the facts, look at the photos, and offer feedback. Some of the more sophisticated online vendors offer text communications from other jurors in real time. However, this system doesn’t compare to real life when you have to justify your position in front of a group. As some behavioral psychologists have noted, 90% of communication is non-verbal. Thus, the text offers some feedback on what the individuals think - it doesn’t do a great job of imitating group behavior.
Mr. Schwartz describes the process as providing online focus groups rather than online mock trials. Mr. Schwartz’s website is located at www.eps-consulting.com.
Labels: jury research, trial
Humpty Dumpty Sues Owner Of Wall
OMAHA, Neb. -- Humpty Dumpty sued the owner of the wall where he had his "great fall" in an Omaha courtroom on Wednesday.
It was a personal injury case in which Dumpty was trying to recover the cost of "putting himself back together again."
The jury was a group of fourth-grade students. The goal of the trial was to educate the students about the legal system and courtroom procedure. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, so now Dumpty can pay all the king's horses and all the king's men.
http://www.ketv.com/education/15971659/detail.html?rss=oma&psp=news
OMAHA, Neb. -- Humpty Dumpty sued the owner of the wall where he had his "great fall" in an Omaha courtroom on Wednesday.
It was a personal injury case in which Dumpty was trying to recover the cost of "putting himself back together again."
The jury was a group of fourth-grade students. The goal of the trial was to educate the students about the legal system and courtroom procedure. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, so now Dumpty can pay all the king's horses and all the king's men.
http://www.ketv.com/education/15971659/detail.html?rss=oma&psp=news
Labels: fall, injury, lawsuit, trial
Our firm has had two premises liability verdicts in February. In the first, a United States District Court jury returned a verdict for $340,000 in a negligent security case. A truck driver parked his truck at a local truck stop. The truck stop had only 1 security guard on duty despite knowing of prior violent crimes. The client was hit on the back of the head and suffered a concussion (a mild brain injury) and a herniated disc in his neck. The plaintiff later had surgery to have his spine fused.
In the second, a Canadian family was staying at a local hotel. The water temperature in the shower was allowed to reach scalding levels and the father suffered a second degree burn which caused a scar on his chest. Attorney Dwayne Adams presented evidence showing that the Defendant had destroyed evidence relating to maintenance records. An expert showed how the boiler was 35 years old and the hotel knew that it had frequently hit unsafe temperatures. The Dekalb County jury returned a verdict of $75,000 for pain and suffering.
In the second, a Canadian family was staying at a local hotel. The water temperature in the shower was allowed to reach scalding levels and the father suffered a second degree burn which caused a scar on his chest. Attorney Dwayne Adams presented evidence showing that the Defendant had destroyed evidence relating to maintenance records. An expert showed how the boiler was 35 years old and the hotel knew that it had frequently hit unsafe temperatures. The Dekalb County jury returned a verdict of $75,000 for pain and suffering.
Labels: avoiding personal injury, brain, damages, pain, spine, suffering, trial, verdict
Archives
February 2007 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
