HowDoITrustThee?LetMeCounttheWays:
AttorneyCredibilityintheCourtroom
by Ann T. Greeley, Ph.D. and Lindsay
Eriksson, Esq.
H
uman beings start out any
decision-making situation like a
trial with their own pre-existing
biases and experiences, which
shape how they judge people and the
situation at issue. With regard to attorneys,
for example, jurors without much
experience with lawyers have told us that
they start out with a relatively low
expectation that attorneys will be
trustworthy. In our jury research exercises,
when assessing pre-trial attitudes and
opinions, many jurors express agreement
that “plaintiff attorneys manufacture
lawsuits to make money,” and “corporate
attorneys just defend the bad behavior of
big companies.” This low regard is due, at
least in part, to the media’s portrayal of
attorneys doing anything they can to win
their cases, but it also represents a lack of
understanding about how the adversarial
system works. While many attorneys focus
on likeability, the real key to being trusted
in the courtroom is credibility, which is
usually considered to be a combination of
trustworthiness,
expertise
and
attractiveness (more about your demeanor
and communication skills than your
personality). While there is no silver bullet
to establishing credibility, our research has
uncovered some behavioral and thematic
dos and don’ts which lead to jurors’ finding
higher levels of credibility in the
courtroom.
What affects
credibility?
decisions
about
As humans, we are hardwired to make
judgments about each other in social
situations: Who do I trust? Who is my ally?
Who is the leader? These impressions
occur
automatically
and
often
subconsciously; and are often experienced
as “gut reactions” when forming
impressions of other people. Some social
scientists have suggested it only takes
seconds to make up your mind about what
you think of someone. And in the
courtroom this snap judgment process
takes on special significance since jurors do
not have time to get to know the lawyers,
or have the opportunity to interact with
them outside of the very structured,
unfamiliar environment of the courtroom.
Jurors’ observations from the jury box
occur in a heightened state of anxiety or
“arousal” as social scientists would put it.
They have been put in the awkward
situation of being in the middle of a dispute
or a fight—one that they did not witness
evolving directly and one with which they
probably have little or no expertise (or else
they would have been struck by one side or
the other during voir dire). Trying to make
sense of an unfamiliar environment, they
look to even the smallest behavioral cues to
help them discern who and what to believe.
They also depend heavily on their life
experiences, as those attorneys who have
watched a mock trial will attest. Jurors try
to compare the case to something
(anything!) in their life that has relevance
for the matter at hand.
This tendency to make snap
judgments, the lack of relevant expertise
and the desire to relieve anxiety sets up a
higher emphasis on peripheral cues (like
non-verbal behavior) rather than central
processing of information. This means
that one consideration in analyzing the
people in the room with regard to
trustworthiness is that superficial attributes
weigh heavily, at least initially, in jurors’
analyses. Jurors are evaluating you as an
attorney from the moment they see you,
and it is important to understand how these
impressions
interact
with
jurors’
acceptance or rejection of your case. If you
establish rapport with the jurors, will they
find you trustworthy? If they see you as
arrogant or if you fail to make eye contact,
will they tend to reject your case?
As an important caveat, over time the
correlation between various attorney
qualities and the eventual verdict decreases,
and the impact of the evidence or, more
accurately, jurors’ reaction to the evidence,
increases. This is consistent with social
science research on jury decision-making;
that is, the evidence becomes more
determinative by the end of the trial than
peripheral factors such as an attorney’s
likeability. However, in cases in which the
evidence is going to be weighed relatively
evenly in the scales of justice, your
credibility becomes more important in
jurors’ evaluation of the case. And, given
that much of what jurors perceive about
your evidence is colored by their
perception of your credibility, and
trustworthiness is one aspect of trial that an
attorney can control, this aspect of attorney
behavior is one that needs to be
understood and cultivated.
Are some types of attorneys more
credible?
We have been gathering data to
answer these and other questions about
how jurors evaluate attorneys. We have
developed
a
58-question
attorney
evaluation survey that draws from social
psychology
literature
on
“person
perception” the dimensions by which
humans judge others’ personalities, social
skills and competence, as well as literature
on legal advocacy and public speaking, and
is designed to assess jurors’ reactions to
attorneys in four broad domains:
•
Rapport: How friendly, warm, and
courteous does the attorney seem?
•
Competence: How organized and
intelligent does the attorney seem?
•
Public speaking skills: For example,
how clearly does the attorney explain
complex matters?
•
Annoying qualities: Is the attorney
fidgety or nervous? Does he or she
exhibit distracting tics or mannerisms?
Cumulatively, our attorney evaluation
database contains attorney ratings across a
wide variety of criminal and civil cases from
venues across the country. The results
suggest that jurors tend to evaluate
plaintiffs’ attorneys as higher in warmth,
intelligence, and credibility (the caveat
being that in some of the cases the plaintiff
attorney was being “played” by a fellow
defense attorney who was told to take on
the plaintiff role), but rated defense
attorneys as higher in clarity, energy, and
respectfulness. Importantly, there is no
difference in how jurors rate plaintiff and
defense attorneys in their general efficacy
as attorneys. An especially intriguing
finding compared how jurors rate male
versus female attorneys. Female attorneys
are rated more highly in 50 of the 58 of the
criteria listed in the survey. Male attorneys
tend to rate higher in categories such as
intelligence and organization, while women
are rated higher in warmth, composure
(relaxed versus nervous), and global
efficacy as an attorney.
As an aside, there were some
difference jurors’ characteristics related to
assessments of attorneys’ overall ratings.
The research suggests that older and more
educated jurors generally tend to give
attorneys higher ratings than younger and
less educated jurors; and female jurors tend
to give attorneys more favorable ratings
than do male jurors (although there appears
to be no difference between male and
female jurors in how they rate male and
female attorneys).
Building trust with jurors
Social science research tells us that
trust tends to be built (or chipped away) in
small increments, rather than by grand
gesture or major blow. Think of trust as a
piggy bank that starts out with some small
bills and change. Jurors are constantly
observing and evaluating how attorney’s
conduct themselves vis-à-vis each other,
the judge, and witnesses; how they react to
situations when things go in their favor and
when things do not; how they speak to the
jurors and how they talk about their client.
Throughout, deposits and debits are being
made to and from each attorney’s “piggy
bank of trust.” While there is no one sizefits-all checklist to maintain a positive
balance in the piggy bank, we have
identified some key behaviors that impact
jurors’ perceptions of credibility.
Credibility Dos:
Professionalism.
As mentioned
above, jurors may have a negative
stereotype of lawyers as aggressive,
arrogant and even rude, based on what they
have seen in the media and heard through
popular culture. In other words, they have
a negative reference point in terms of
attorneys. Importantly, attorneys should
behave as professionals in contrast to that
reference point. Many jurors have told us
that while they had a negative impression
of attorneys globally before they started
trial, that at the post-trial interview point,
they considered the attorneys in their trial as
skilled professionals. Many of the
behaviors listed below led jurors to change
their minds about attorneys from pre-trial
to post-trial.
Respect for the court. The most
common comment from jurors who have
just witnessed a trial is that they observed
how the attorneys treated the other people
in the courtroom. Did the attorney treat the
judge in the courtroom with respect? Did
he or she pick and choose who to be
respectful to, addressing the judge with
deference but addressing opposing council
with disdain? Did the attorney treat his or
her team with respect, including the
courtroom tech and the staff? In jurors’
heightened state of arousal where they are
unsure what “normal” looks like, and they
will be extra-sensitive to shifts in tone and
manner. Yes, jurors notice it all, and they
are put off by rude treatment of even the
most insignificant player on the team. In
fact, they think that attorneys’ treatment of
colleagues may be more indicative of who
they are really are as people. Attorneys who
are respectful of the court, the opposing
attorney and their own team members are
valued for their professionalism. Of course
it is understood and expected that attorneys
will be zealous advocates for their clients,
but jurors have told us that respect for the
system and the players within it, translates
to perceived credibility and competence.
Follow through: It may the oldest
adage in the book, but is still true that if the
attorney makes a promise in voir dire or
opening, but does not follow through by
providing the promised evidence or
witness, this will reflect on his or her overall
trustworthiness. This adage is as important
as a witness being found to have offered a
statement and then reneging on that
statement, or worse, getting caught in a lie.
Perhaps one situation of failure to followthrough or one misstatement should not
color the overall perception of that
attorney or witness, but unfortunately it
does, particularly in the courtroom.
Consistency: Consistency is one of
the most critical hallmarks of credibility. Its
importance cannot be overstated, not only
in terms of internal case consistency as well
as consistency in overall behavior. Does
the attorney contradict his or her own
themes? For example in a patent case, an
attorney who says, “They stole the idea
from someone who previously worked for
our company,” but later has no answer to
the allegation that his client’s own company
stole the technology from the prior art
inventors, will be called out for this lack of
consistency. Consistency is also demanded
in terms of attorney behavior. Does the
attorney seem eager to bolster his or her
own witnesses, while attacking the other
side’s unnecessarily? If the attorney’s
personality seems to change depending on
who she or he is talking to, it will come
across as self-serving and disingenuous,
and will likely cause jurors to withdraw
funds from the credibility piggy bank.
Transparency: Jurors start out trials
being suspicious of the parties. Why?
Perhaps because it is clear that each party is
pulling for their vote and jurors, like most
people, have a natural resistance to that
kind of pull or potential manipulation. But
much of jurors’ suspicion exists because
the court restricts the evidence that jurors
can see in the courtroom, holds many
sidebars in which jurors do not know what
happened, actually instructs jurors to
“ignore” evidence to which someone
objected or that was introduced
inappropriately, and instructs them not to
look up or “Google” any outside
information on the subject matter or the
law. It is no wonder they start out being
suspicious of what “else” is out there!
Show jurors that you are helping them get
the whole picture, not hiding or
obfuscating things. For example, show the
jurors the entire document before having
your tech pull out the smaller, highlighted
part of the document. Don’t try to hurry
an email off the screen that has some
“other” damaging comments because one
of the jurors will surely see the sentences
you don’t want them to see. Make sure that
you go through what is on your
PowerPoint slide; rushing through the
material, or worse, talking about something
different while your slide is up suggests that
you do not really want the jurors to pay
attention to what is on the slide (or to what
you are saying). Making jurors feel that the
other side is using “sleight of hand”
techniques, while you attempt to be
straightforward with nothing to hide, will
lead
to
greater
perceptions
of
trustworthiness.
Preparation/Organization:
Trustworthiness is based on dependability;
dependability in the trial setting means
organization and the ability to provide a
smooth, efficient trial experience. The days
of worrying about a visual presentation
coming across to jurors as “too slick” are
all but over; jurors in the digital age have an
expectation that your presentation will be
augmented by technology and that it will
work seamlessly. Fumbling for exhibits,
having trouble presenting an organized
direct examination or failing to deliver a
succinct, incisive cross means losing the
jurors’ attention, frustrating their ability to
learn and leading to a lack of retention of
the information you are providing. If you
are organized you are also respecting their
time, as much as can be done within the
laborious pace of trial. Jurors trust lawyers
more if they are prepared and organized.
Conviction: It is important that the
attorney is sincere and convinced of the
rightness of his or her case. Attorneys do
this naturally by saying, “I am pleased to
represent my client X” in introductions,
and in not wavering in saying, “There is
another side to the story,” when the
plaintiff attorney has just painted a very
negative picture of the defendant. Getting
up with conviction is important in
convincing jurors that the company did the
required testing on the drug or that the
product was safe for the marketplace, and
it is even more important if what the
company did was flawed, but nonetheless
did not cause the incident in dispute. The
higher the perceived conviction the higher
perceived trust and confidence in what the
attorney is saying and in the case that is
being presented.
Be direct in addressing claims.
You must meet the opposing party where
they stand and answer their claims. Jurors
want to know how the defendant will deal
with the opposing counsel’s claim and not
by offering only an offensive case or
choosing to offer facts and evidence that
the defendant likes better. In openings,
closings and witness exams, the attorneys
need to clearly and directly address the
accusations against them before going
down their own rabbit holes.
Credibility Don’ts:
Inflammatory language. Benjamin
Disraeli once said, “Never tell unkind
stories.” While it may be tempting to use
inflammatory language, sarcasm, or
negative terms to talk about the other
parties, witnesses, etc., such behavior by an
attorney often comes across as overly
aggressive, leaving a bad taste in jurors’
mouths. Getting “personal” if the point is
not relevant to the case is not helpful. For
example, in one medical malpractice case,
an attorney considered telling the jury that
the plaintiff father of a child who had died
(while being treated at the hospital) had had
an affair with a neighbor after the child’s
death. Offering such information under
the circumstances would not have made for
a stronger case, even if disparaging his
character and making him seem less
deserving of a big award appealed to the
team at first. In jurors’ eyes, this disclosure
would have made the lawyer seem gossipy
and petty (the plaintiff was in terrible
emotional pain, and it was irrelevant to the
case).
After consultation, the lawyer
thought through the jury psychology of the
situation and stayed on the high road. “Low
blows” can have a damaging effect on
attorney credibility, and in fact, this type of
behavior often produces the opposite of
the desired result. It makes the attorney
seem like a bully, and activates jurors’
moral imperative to defend someone who
is being attacked unfairly.
Attacking the profession. One of
the worst violations of the above may be
when an attorney alleges that the opposing
attorney cannot be trusted because he or
she is behaving like a particular type of
attorney. This is a particularly common
transgression from the defense bar,
implying that the plaintiff lawyer took the
case for greedy reasons or suggesting that
he or she has fueled the desires of the
plaintiff to continue to trial. On the other
hand, plaintiff lawyers want to suggest that
that the defense lawyer is hired by
Corporate America and as such, cannot be
trusted. Even consultants have been
attacked by attorneys telling the jury that
“We are at a disadvantage because we could
not afford an ‘expensive’ consultant or we
don’t have ‘slick graphics’.” Jurors are
never impressed by these tactics, and they
reinforce the idea that attorneys are
untrustworthy. Jurors think that everyone
in the courtroom is making more money
than they are as juror, and automatically
assume that everyone in the courtroom,
with the exception of the judge and the
court staff, are probably making a great deal
of money. Remember that every attorney
has baggage: the plaintiff attorney may be
getting a percentage (which jurors estimate
from between 30% to 50% of the damages)
and the defense attorney may be working
for a big company (which means to jurors
that they are not looking out for the little
guy). But attacking someone in the same
profession belittles not only that person,
but the person who levels the accusation.
Arguing morals explicitly: While
moral themes and arguments can be
extremely effective, it compromises
credibility when an attorney crosses the line
from arguing the facts to arguing values
(what is fair or morally right). It is almost
never effective to argue moral conclusions
directly, and jurors often recoil from what
feels like an attempt by the attorney to tell
the jurors how to think.
Appealing
implicitly to jurors’ morals is highly
effective; telling them what those morals
should be is a surefire way to damage
attorney credibility. One area where this
issue arises often is in cases involving
punitive damages; attorneys frequently
justify their punitive demand by arguing
that it is “fair” or “right” to punish a
company to the tune of however many
millions of dollars. It is far more effective
to argue that the defendants’ actions were
reckless and/or malicious and/or whatever
the definition requires for punitive
damages, and leave the moral conclusions
out of it. Jurors are all too eager to come to
the moral conclusions themselves, and
when you allow them to, they will cling to
their conclusion much more tenaciously.
Preaching to jurors. The more
lawyers preach, the more jurors do not
trust them. Along the same lines as we have
discussed above, jurors really like to make
up their own minds, so telling them what
they have to think or how they “must find”
is not as trustworthy as simply laying the
facts out clearly and persuasively for them.
Jurors want to sort out the facts and come
to their own conclusions.
Further,
preaching, rather than teaching, leads to
condescending or patronizing jurors. We
have heard during mock trials that phrases
like the popular, “Use your common
sense,” makes jurors feel as though the
lawyers don’t think they can handle the
complexity of the facts or the law. Jurors
say it is a “put-down.” Of course that is
not the intent of that phrase, but jurors feel
it is a suggestion that they cannot
understand the issues and have only their
“common sense” to rely on in dealing with
case.
that is never like us,” and further felt that
he was stretching to show a connection to
the case. Jurors almost never buy that high
powered lawyers are “like them” and thus,
these kinds of stories do not lead to
increased credibility.
Certain case theme traps. A
number of case themes are not trustworthy
to jurors.
The following are some
examples.
•
Arguing with too much conviction.
As a follow up to the above, and a caveat
to
the
“conviction
leads
to
trustworthiness” point, there is a fine line
between sincere conviction and selling
things to the jury. We often see this with
witnesses who have a sales or marketing
position; they can’t stop selling. If you feel
you are selling the case to the jury, putting
the very best light on it without offering up
or acknowledging the downsides or
unsavory facts, jurors will not trust you.
Any attempt to sell them on the truth will
backfire.
Offering too many personal stories.
Jurors tell us that they do not believe
personal stories offered by lawyers
intended to show a connection with the
jurors or the “common man.”
For
example, a defense attorney, in a case
involving a small business, told the jurors a
story about how his grandfather had owned
a small store, and that he had frequently
visited the site as a child. Through this story
he implied that he had not only come from
humble beginnings and could relate to the
jurors, but also understood the
entrepreneurial nature of the plaintiff’s
business. Jurors felt that “an attorney like
and does not lead to trust if you
depend upon this concept. We know
that jurors often think the defendant
has done something wrong before the
case starts because there is a
“filtration” system at work in the court
system. Jurors often believe that bad
cases are settled or the judge throws
the case out; thus, the only cases left
are those that actually have some
merit. Recognize this dynamic, and if
you are the defendant’s attorney,
discuss it with jurors in voir dire and
in opening. It is important to educate
jurors to the fact that the merits of this
case have yet to be decided and can
only be decided if they are willing to
listen to you, the other side.
•
Focusing too heavily on humanizing the
company. Attempting to humanize a
company by talking about its virtuous
employees or its trusted products, can
often be considered untrustworthy.
The assumption is that jurors are
influenced by such stories, but in fact
this strategy has little persuasive value.
Defendants tout that their companies
are made up of people and are thus
“human” and worthy of the same
consideration as an individual. A juror
once said, “It’s not like they are the
Red Cross.” Of course the law says
companies are to be considered
equally to individuals, but this also is
just as unlikely to persuade. It is a hard
fact to swallow; companies are not
people in the eyes of most jurors and
will never be seen as a collection of
human beings who are like the people
on the jury. A large company or
corporation is considered just that, a
business entity run by over-paid
executives and distant boards. The
“good company” type of appeal
typically falls on deaf ears since jurors
already have beliefs about what a
company is all about—making money.
Any attempt to make jurors aware that
a company may eliminate jobs or leave
the community if an award is made is
more likely to anger jurors than
engender good feelings about that
company. That being said, it is
important that the company still
present a corporate representative to
put a real face on the company and to
face the claims being made; this is
helpful because this is a real person
with an investment in the company
and in the outcome of the trial, sitting
through the trial with the jurors. That
in itself has value to jurors in their
overall assessment of the case.
Depending on the assumption that the
defendant is innocent until proven “guilty.”
Assuming that jurors believe that the
defendant is innocent, in both criminal
and civil trials, is not helpful to you
•
A positive local company reputation is
enough. It is possible to have limited
success with a reputation of being
available in a crisis (the theory is that a
utility company is only as good as its
response providing service in the most
recent ice storm or hurricane), but that
is different than the “we’re good
people” story.
Discussion of
charitable work is not necessarily
something that builds trust, since is
considered an attempt to manipulate
by saying “We are a good company so
don’t blame us for this (whatever
happened).” The good reputation
story has limited usefulness and may
even turn some jurors off.
•
Sympathy will drive verdicts. Similarly,
when the plaintiff attorney tries to
portray the plaintiff as a victim and
worthy of sympathy, this can backfire
when overdone. It is more likely that
a plaintiff can be successful with
attacking the defendant’s failure to
provide a certain safety level or
protection from harm, than to talk
about how sad or deserving a plaintiff
is. In many cases, social science has
shown that talking more about the
plaintiff will draw juror attention and
potential criticism of things the
plaintiff might have done differently
to protect him or herself. Sometimes
jurors are motivated to create other
stories about the individuals involved.
In one case, jurors saw a picture of the
grieving young widow, and instead of
feeling more sympathy, they decided
such an attractive young woman
would have time to start her life over
and did not deserve as much of an
award. Also, jurors sometimes
experience “defensive denial” that is,
the desire to protect themselves from
believing the same thing could happen
to them by denying the plaintiff’s pain.
As such, sympathy pleas must be
tested before being put in front of a
jury.
Persuasive
communication.
Delivery of the message is as important as
the message itself—indeed our jury
research suggests that in many cases
persuasive delivery is a prerequisite for
jurors being open to the message.
Importantly, we know that jurors believe that
they are skilled at detecting whether or not
someone is lying. In fact, the problem is
that as human beings we learn to focus on
the wrong things, and as such make the
wrong inferences from what we observe.
The “tells” include everything from the
avoidance of eye contact to blinking or
hesitating
when
speaking,
but
experimentally we know these are poor
proxies of lying; speakers who want to be
believed regularly exhibit such behaviors
even when they are telling the truth,
especially in high stress situations.
However, experimentally verified or not,
jurors will use these “tells” in determining
whether or not to believe what the attorney
is saying. The attorney’s credibility, like a
witness’s credibility, is dependent on
persuasive speaking skills, or at least not
distracting from the message by non-verbal
behavior or a communication faux pas that
can take away from that credibility. Here
are some examples of what jurors focus on
in their determination of whether or not an
attorney is credible.
•
Act like you’ve been there
before. Various football coaches
have been credited with telling
players that when they hit the end
zone for a touchdown that they
should act like they have been
there before. The same could be
said for a lawyer getting up to give
an opening statement. Effective
speaking skills involve being
poised and exhibiting good
posture (upright but not rigid);
not speaking from directly behind
the podium; and not using notes
(at least for the initial overview of
the case). Look like you know
your case and you have done your
homework. Make sure your trial
tech is ready with exhibits and
demonstratives. Start with your
theme in the first paragraph and
then after you have set the scene,
introduce your team and your
client. In other words, act like
you have been there before.
•
Voice. Your voice is important
in the connection with the jury. It
is important that it not be too
high (lacks credibility), or too soft
(shows a lack of confidence). It is
important that there are not big
ranges in vocal quality. Changes
in tone, speed, and emotion signal
jurors that the speaker is
uncomfortable, and is, in jurors’
minds, probably not telling the
truth. A moderately low pitch is
better than a high pitch in
conveying
credibility;
this
suggests that many women need
to lower their voices (in pitch not
volume) in order to get the right
reaction from jurors. A high or
squeaky voice is not compelling
since it makes the jurors think of
someone younger or someone
with less experience and
confidence.
•
Speech rate. A moderately fast
rate of 210 words per minute is
perceived as more credible than
very fast or very slow rates of
speech. Moderately fast talkers
are generally perceived as more
credible than those who speak
very slowly or very fast.
We
know that people speak more
rapidly when they are expressing
something urgent, when they are
nervous, when they perceive they
are running out of time or when
they believe they are going to be
interrupted. Research suggests
that speaking really fast leads to
jurors feeling like they are
listening to the stereotypical sales
person who cannot be trusted;
speaking too slowly leads to low
confidence in the speaker’s
credibility. However, if you think
jurors believe your message,
speaking more slowly can be
helpful in aiding absorption
(think a preacher). If jurors are
resistant to the message, however,
then a slower message is not
helpful; a faster message is more
credible because it will lead to less
time to come up with counterarguments. In any case, some
pauses are helpful to aid in juror
comprehension
and
to
perceptions of credibility, but too
much hesitation can suggest a
speaker’s lack of confidence.
•
Eye contact. Experiments show
that interpreting eye contact is not
a reliable means of detecting
lying, and that may be so;
however, jurors believe eye
contact is an important factor in
deciding who to believe. Jurors
tell us that they want eye contact
spread around the entire jury, not
focused on an individual juror;
they want eye contact that is
direct, not over their heads (as
some communication experts
have
been
known
to
recommend); they want eye
contact that lets them know that
the speaker is genuine and not
afraid to “look them in the eye,”
but is not intimidating to the
listener—in other words, not
staring or too intense. Remember
that those who are nodding may
not be in agreement with you but
might be nodding for the other
side (and many people nod for
everyone), so do not be distracted
by such behavior and avoid
focusing only on those jurors.
•
Distracting behaviors. Jurors
watch lawyers to see if they are
giving signals about being
uncomfortable with the facts,
such as touching their faces to
adjust glasses, smoothing beards
or flipping hair away or tucking it
behind the ear, and fidgeting such
as tapping or exhibiting constant
movement. Jurors are particularly
aware
of
attorneys
(and
witnesses) who cover their
mouths when they speak or even
get close by putting hands in a
thinking pose (which can look like
they are praying) or even touching
their chins or putting hands on
their cheeks. These gestures are
sometimes
perceived
as
conveying a desire to hide
something, and are not helpful to
credibility.
Summary
Maintaining credibility is critical in
order for a jury to accept your case;
credibility is far more important than
likeability and rapport. Jurors are making
judgments about the attorneys from the
moment they enter the room, and trust is
continuously being built or destroyed in
small increments based on the attorneys’
behavior. Credibility comes from factors
such as how the attorneys treat the other
parties in the courtroom, how they react to
good and bad rulings, and how they present
themselves and the evidence. There is no
surefire way to guarantee a jury will find
you credible, but by knowing some key
behaviors, arguments, and themes that
have an impact, attorneys can work to
subtly bolster their perceived credibility
and avoid the most serious credibility
pitfalls.
Thanks to our DecisionQuest partners
who contributed to this article Bob
Bettler,Ph.D., Leslie Ellis, Ph.D., Michael
Biek, Ph.D. and Dan Wolfe, Esquire, J.D.,
Ph.D.