Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From War Protestors to Corporate Litigants: The Evolution of the Profession of Trial Consulting

  • Chapter
The Witness Stand and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Jr.

  • 673 Accesses

Abstract

The profession of trial consulting had its beginnings in the early 1970s. Throughout the 1970s, social scientists were called upon to assist in anti-war cases, and then forayed into mostly high-profile civil rights and criminal defense cases. The first meeting of the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC) was in 1982 and was attended by a couple of dozen members, mostly social scientists. The profession has grown considerably in the 30 years since. Today, ASTC membership approaches 500, and the organization is guided by a set of ethical guidelines. Furthermore, the profession now draws from a more diverse range of educational backgrounds and skill sets: social scientists, law, theater, and graphic design. There is no required educational degree, just as there are no licensure requirements. Although they continue to assist with jury selection, consultants are more likely to be engaged in pretrial small-group research such as focus groups and mock trials. Consultants also conduct change-of-venue surveys, prepare witnesses, and educate attorneys about the art of persuasion, all of which are included in the chapter. The distinction between focus groups and mock trials is discussed as well as two key methodological issues associated with conducting small-group research: ecological validity and representativeness. Steps to preparing a witness are outlined, in addition to the presentation of criticisms that revolve around the belief that preparing a witness is deceitful. Most organizational recommendations by trial consultants are generally supported by empirical research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Society of Trial Consultants. (2008). The professional code of the American Society of Trial Consultants. Retrieved from http://www.astcweb.org/userfiles/file/Compiled%20Code%2010-08.pdf

  • American Society of Trial Consultants Research Committee. (2004, June). ASTC Research Committee “Piggyback Project”: Part I. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Trial Consultants, Memphis, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290. doi:10.1037/h0055756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. (2002, June). Story and structure for plaintiffs. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Trial Consultants, Westminster, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, K. E. (1999). Letting focus groups work for you. Trial, 35, 74–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boccaccini, G. T., Gordon, T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2005). Witness preparation training with real and simulated criminal defendants. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 659–687. doi:10.1002/bsl.655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, V. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 1968, 734–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothwell, R. K., & Jalil, M. (1992). The credibility of nervous witnesses. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 581–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G. H. (1976). Experiments on story understanding and recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 511–534. doi:10.1080/14640747608400579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradac, J. J., Hemphill, M. R., & Tardy, C. H. (1981). Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech upon judgments of victims and villains. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, W. F., & Nakamura, G. V. (1984). The nature and function of schema. In R. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 119–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broda-Bahm, K. (2011). Conduct a social media analysis on your potential jurors (but beware of false expectations of privacy). Persuasive Litigator. Retrieved from http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2011/02/social-media-analysis.html

  • Brodsky, S. L., & Cannon, D. E. (2006). Ingratiation in the courtroom and in the voir dire process: When more is not better. Law & Psychology Review, 30, 103–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodsky, S. L., Hooper, N. E., Tipper, D. G., & Yates, S. B. (1999). Attorney invasion of witness space. Law & Psychology Review, 23, 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, L. M., Jalbert, A., Penney, A. M., Neath, I., Surprenant, A. M., & Tehan, G. (2010). Evidence for proactive interference in the focus of attention of working memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 208–214. doi:10.1037/a0021011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • CBS News. (2012, April 11). Zimmerman is charged. Timeline of Events. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57446374/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmerman-quiet-and-cooperative-back-in-fla-jail/

  • Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, A. H. (1999). From the president. Court Call, 15(2), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, E., & King, J. (1980). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment. Law and Society Review, 15, 9–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, R. J., Neal, T. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2009). Self-efficacy and confidence: Theoretical distinctions and implications for trial consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61, 319–334. doi:10.1037/a0017310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, R. J. (1989). The persuasion edge. Eau Claire, WI: Professional Education Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Studebaker, N., & Stolle, D. P. (2009). Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: Data from the field. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 136–148. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9144-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S. (1995). Reference guide on survey research. In J. M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Weinstein’s evidence special supplement 1995: Reference manual on scientific evidence (pp. 221–272). New York: Matthew and Bender.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolnik, L., Case, T. I., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Stealing thunder as a courtroom tactic revisited: Processes and boundaries. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 267–287. doi:10.1023/A:1023431823661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feldhake, R. J., & Keele, L. M. (2004). Or not to certify: Avoiding a distinction without a difference and a raft of practical problems. Court Call, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara, M. L. (2010). The psychology of voir dire. The Jury Expert, 22(6), 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, J. T. (2011). Ten dynamite tips to improve your results from group voir dire. The Jury Expert, 23(2), 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futterman, R. (2011). Playing the other side’s hand: Strategic voir dire technique. The Jury Expert, 23(2), 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genard, G. (2001a). How to create a powerful presence in the courtroom. Court Call, 17, 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genard, G. (2001b). Speaking smart: Harnessing the power of your voice to convince others. Court Call, 17, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giewat, G. (2004). Research notes: See poster on Piggy Back Research at Memphis convention. Court Call, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giewat, G. (2011). Damage awards: Jurors’ sense of entitlement as a predictor. The Jury Expert, 23(3), 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, B. C. (1993). Focus groups versus mock trials: Which should you use? Trial Diplomacy Journal, 16, 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenbaum, T. L. (1998). The handbook for focus group research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C. (2011). Ten rules for great jury selection: With some lessons from Texas case law. Defense Counsel Journal, 78, 29–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hass, R. G. (1981). Effects of source characteristics on the cognitive processing of persuasive messages and attitude change. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeschen, B. L. F. (2001). The e-alternative: Online mock juries offer cheap and fast opinions. ABA Journal, 87, 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, L., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2004). Understanding pretrial publicity: Predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 111–119. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.10.2.111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, S. (2001, February 5). Trial lawyers are cutting cost of focus groups via the Internet. Lawyers Weekly USA. Retrieved from http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com

  • Imrich, D., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Measuring the extent of pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. Journal of Communication, 45, 94–117. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00745.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, K. (2002). The making of What Can Lawyers Learn from Actors: The journey from live workshop to video tape. Court Call, 18, 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An explanatory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487–506. doi:10.1007/BF01499170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., & Vinson, L. (1987). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: Status, powerful speech, and evaluations of female witnesses. Women’s Studies in Communication, 10, 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. E. (n.d.). Witness preparation: Teaching lay witnesses to [sic] how to master the challenges of testifying in court. Retrieved from http://www.juryresearchinstitute.com/articles/finalwitnessprep/page-2.php

  • Jury Research Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.juryresearchinstitute.com/articles/articlesandpublications/

  • Klein, R. B. (1993). Winning cases with body language. Trial, 29, 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. R., & Kochman, R. W. (1998). How to prepare for and conduct an effective direct examination. New Jersey Lawyer, 194, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, C. S. (2001). Improving the odds: Using mock trials to hone strategies. The Trial Lawyer, 24, 116–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, E., & Bonora, B. (Eds.). (1983). Jurywork: Systematic techniques (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kressel, N. J., & Kressel, D. F. (2002). Stack and sway. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. A. (1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J., & Abelson, R. P. (1974). A patient by any other name…: Clinical group differences in labeling bias. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 4–9. doi:10.1037/h0036054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lecci, L. B., & Myers, B. (2009). Predicting guilt judgments and verdict change using a measure of pretrial bias in a videotaped mock trial with deliberating jurors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 619–634. doi:10.1080/10683160802477757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecci, L., Snowden, J., & Morris, D. (2008). Using social science research to inform and evaluate the contributions of trial consultants in the voir dire. The Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeGrande, N., & Mierau, K. E. (2004). Witness preparation and the trial consulting industry. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 17, 947–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiberman, J. D. (2011). The utility of scientific jury selection: Still murky after 30 years. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 48–52. doi:10.1177/0963721410396628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linz, D. G., & Penrod, S. (1984). Increasing attorney persuasiveness in the courtroom. Law and Psychology Review, 8, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, D., Penrod, S., & McDonald, E. (1986). Attorney communication and impression making in the courtroom: Views from the bench. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 281–302. doi:10.1007/BF01047342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lisko, K. O. (1992). Juror perceptions of witness credibility as a function of linguistic and nonverbal power. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Communication Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lisko, K., & Barker, S. (2004). To certify: Increasing trial consultant competency and enhancing professional credibility. Court Call, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812–822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matheo, L., & DeCaro, L. L. (2001). 11 ways to improve courtroom performance. The Brief, 31, 58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matlon, R. J. (1988). Communication in the legal process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matlon, R. J. (1998). The history of the American Society of Trial Consultants: A personal look. Court Call, 14(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, G. W. (1994, March). Juror decisions as a function of linguistic structure of the opening statement and closing argument. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Santa Fe, NM.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElhaney, J. W. (2000). From start to finish. ABA Journal, 86, 50–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millward, L. J. (2000). Focus groups. In G. M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, & C. Fife-Shaw (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 303–324). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345–367. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00524.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & DeLisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, F. W. (1990). Judicial standards for survey research: An update and guidelines. Journal of Marketing, 54, 59–70. doi:10.2307/1252173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, S. D. (2000). Focus groups for small cases. The Trial Lawyer, 23, 433–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • New, C., Schwartz, S., & Giewat, G. (2005, June). Lay perceptions of witness preparation. Presentation at the Annual Conference of the American Society of Trial Consultants, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • New, C. C., Schwartz, S., & Giewat, G. (2006). Witness preparation by trial consultants: Competitive advantage or invitation to discoverability. Washington State Bar Association, 60(5), 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1983). Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 309–335. doi:10.1007/BF01044735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1986). Psychological consultation in the courtroom. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, R., & Weimann-Saks, D. (2011). Stealing sunshine. Law and Contemporary Problems, 74(2), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peskin, S. H. (1980). Nonverbal communication in the courtroom. Trial Diplomacy Journal, 3, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posey, A. J., & Dahl, L. M. (2002). Beyond pretrial publicity: Legal and ethical issues associated with change of venue surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 107–125. doi:10.1023/A:1013833325829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posey, A. J., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2004). Objectives of focus groups versus mock trials: Is there consensus? Does it matter? Court Call, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posey, A. J., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2005). Trial consulting. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prosise, T. O., & New, C. C. (2007). Ten key questions: Evaluating the quality of mock trial research. For the Defense, 49(8), 10–13, 82.

    Google Scholar 

  • R&D Strategic Solutions. (n.d.). Trial consulting services: Medical malpractice trial consulting. Retrieved from http://www.rd-ss.com/rd_services_medical.html

  • Rieke, R. D., & Stutman, R. K. (1990). Communication in legal advocacy. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruva, C. L., & McEvoy, C. (2008). Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 226–235. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.226.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. J. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz, J., & Snedaker, K. H. (1988). Communication and litigation: Case studies of famous trials. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, J., Shaver, P., Colman, R., Emrich, B., & Christie, R. (1987). Recipe for a jury. In L. S. Wrightsman, S. M. Kassin, & C. Willis (Eds.), In the jury box: Controversies in the courtroom (pp. 13–47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, R. (2006). Scientific jury selection: Does it work? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2417–2435. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00110.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahani, V. R. (2005). Change the motion, not the venue: A critical look at the change of venue motion. American Criminal Law Review, 42, 93–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, A. M. (2000). Standards make a profession. Court Call, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, A. (2004). Give it away! Court Call, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, A. (1996). Focusing on jury focus groups. Trial Diplomacy Journal, 19, 321–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiecker, S. C., & Worthington, D. L. (2003). The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 437–456. doi:10.1023/A:1024041201605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1–34. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–235. doi:10.1023/A:1022325019080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, C. (2000). Anatomy of an online focus group. Court Call, 1–2, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 89–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twiggs, H. F. (1994). Do-it-yourself focus groups: Big benefits, modest cost. Trial, 30, 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B. J. (1957). Interference and forgetting. Psychological Review, 64, 49–60. doi:10.1037/h0044616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2008). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection: A plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1323–1336. doi:10.1177/0093854808321530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. D., Bourgeois, M. J., & Croyle, R. T. (1993). The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 597–609. doi:10.1007/BF01044684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrightsman, L. S. (2001). Forensic psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Sciences, Benedictine College, Cray Seaberg Hall, Room 208, Atchison, KS, 66002, USA

    Amy J. Posey

Authors
  1. Amy J. Posey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy J. Posey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Cynthia Willis-Esqueda

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Posey, A.J. (2016). From War Protestors to Corporate Litigants: The Evolution of the Profession of Trial Consulting. In: Willis-Esqueda, C., Bornstein, B. (eds) The Witness Stand and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Jr.. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2077-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation