Many clients think that simply being on the right side of the case means they will win their case in front of a jury. What many don’t realize is that every juror brings to trial their on bias and preferences which have nothing to do with the facts of the case. If a juror goes into trial believing that doctors are honest, benevolent, highly trained and competent, this juror will almost certainly justify plaintiff’s evidence of malpractice in a manner favorable for the doctor. To this juror, it is more likely that the evidence was taken out of context, has a reasonable explanation, or is the result of an honest mistake than convincing evidence of malpractice.
Trial is ultimately about jurors making choices between the versions of the evidence offered by the plaintiff and the defense. Although the justice system demands that jurors make these choices based solely on an objective view of the evidence presented, psychologist and experienced trial lawyers understand that this is impossible; in interpreting information and making judgments and decision, jurors are forced to rely on their subjective framing of the case to make these choices, and the jurors’ framework of the case colors their interpretation of the evidence to fit their preconceived ideas.
Comments for this article are closed.