I was recently invited by Perkins Coie—one of the most respected litigation firms in the country—to join their Persuasion Occasion podcast. We covered a wide range of topics on jury decision-making, trial strategy, and persuasion. But one idea stood out—because it runs directly against how most lawyers are trained to think: “Fear wins. When fear is up against logic, fear wins.” If you try cases for a living, that statement should matter to you. Because it explains why strong, logical cases sometimes lose—and why weaker cases sometimes win.
For more than 30 years, we’ve worked with trial teams across the country, and we’ve learned something simple: Cases improve when lawyers test their themes under real jury pressure. What has changed is not whether mock trials work. What has changed is how we conduct them. Today, trial teams must decide between: In-person mock trials Online (virtual) mock trials Or a layered combination of both We run both formats constantly. And when structured properly, each can deliver powerful strategic insight. But format is not the most important decision. Design is. Our Gold Standard Mock Trial Methodology When the stakes justify it, we do not run small, casual focus groups. We recruit 80–100 jury-qualified participants. We create a case-specific mock juror questionnaire. We conduct a structured mock voir dire. Then we reduce the pool to three separate 12-person panels. One plaintiff-leaning One defense-leaning One mixed
Share: