Dr. Manges PhD | Forensic Psychologist
Jury Trials and Opening Statements
When using a model story, or theme as the foundation for your case, you will want to begin telling your story the first chance you have to talk to the jury. Except for what jurors may have learned through voir dire, you are essentially starting out with a tabula rosa, a blank slate. Thus, the opening statement becomes critical in giving the jury a sense of the case.
Following are some points to consider when constructing your opening statements:
- 80-85% of all jurors form either an opinion about the case or form impressions which serve as filters through which all evidence moves, by the end of the opening statement
- Explain the case narratively, using the “big picture.” Do not think as a lawyer, but as a story teller
- Tell your story in a natural, chronological order, keeping the listeners’ attention
- Do not get bogged down in detail but do not overlook interesting facts that strengthen the case
- Pull out the essential points of the case – reassure the jury it is case they can understand and decide
- Do not overstate or exaggerate
Key parts of a successful story telling
- Identify characters through interesting human interest details
- Explain their conduct through motive
- Tie your story together with a moral point- or theme of the case
- Use imagery to get the jury to visualize the scenario
To be persuasive, think like a juror.
You have to choose key elements and use them to structure your story. How your story is structured affects whether juries perceive it as true or false.
As the plaintiff’s lawyer, you must create a credible story that is consistent with each party’s behavior while also being ready to counter the defense counsel’s strategy.
[biginfobox textcolor=”#ffffff” title=”Learn more about the techniques for constructing opening statement” href=”https://kenmanges.com/contact-us/” button_title=”Call us now!”][/biginfobox]
As the defense counsel, you have 4 basic strategy options.
- A combination of all 3
Challenge – good for when plaintiff’s counsel has not constructed a sound or consistent story. Use it show important elements are poorly supported by evidence/testimony or does not exist.
Redefinition – good for when the plaintiff’s story is complete. This relies on your ability to find ambiguous elements that can support a different definition while simultaneously affecting the meaning of the plaintiff’s story.
Reconstruction – introduce evidence that tells a different story about the defendant’s behavior
Combination – despite which strategy is used, the story must be complete and nonambiguous.
It is important to select your theme and to weave it throughout every aspect of your case which you expect the jury to rely upon in making a decision.
For References used in this fact sheet, please contact Dr. Manges & Associates, Inc. at 513.784.1333.
Dr. Kenneth Manges, is a Forensic Psychologist and vocational expert who offers consultation and comprehensive evaluations across the United States. His analyses have been recognized for their clarity and scientific rigor. He offers reasonably certain opinions about the psychological impact of physical injury or emotional trauma as they effect earning capacity and the impact of loss on future work and quality of life. Well regarded in the litigation arena, he is a trusted and respected authority and offers evaluations that have been consistently upheld in both state and federal courts.