Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

In observance of National Collision Awareness Month, School Transportation News featured attorney Jeffrey J. Kroll in an article promoting safe driving tips. The article (which can be read in its entirety here), provides the following simple safety recommendations:

• Eliminate distractions while driving. Focus on the road, not the backseat or that hot cup of coffee, when you are behind the wheel.
• Don't multitask while driving. Never text or email. Also, refrain from adjusting the radio, applying makeup or snacking. Taking your eyes off the road, even for a second, can create a lifetime of loss.
• Keep your vehicle clean. Keep the area near your accelerator and brakes free from debris.
• Don't ever drive impaired. Call a friend, take a taxi, or use public transportation if you feel you are unable to drive for any reason.
• Drive with your headlights on, even during the day.

The Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll encourages all drivers to take the time this month to evaluate their driving practices in an effort to make our roads safer.

The international sensation, Susan Boyle, has re-taught us an age-old lesson that you cannot always judge a book by its cover. The Britain's Got Talent star appeared dowdy and awkward as she appeared on stage. The judges and audience around the world doubted her ability to sing based on her appearance. Ms. Boyle definitely blew everyone away when she started singing, "I Dreamed A Dream." Apparently, everyone's expectations of her were so low based on how she looked and you could see audience members at the show snickering at her. Trial lawyers should also take note of the lesson here on how a person's appearance affects others expectations of them. At trial, it is essential that you grasp the opportunity to manage the jury's expectations.

Like it or not, people do judge others based on their appearance. It is not always fair, but it is a fact. Keep this in mind when you are on trial. This principle applies to your own appearance, the appearance of the plaintiffs and defendants and the appearance of the jury.

My advice would be to make a good impression from the start because appearances do make an impression. That being said, it may be a good idea to explain, perhaps during your opening statement, any of your client's idiosyncrasies or behaviors if you think that the jury is judging him or her on that basis. Use the opportunities that you have before the jury to emphasize your client's positive attributes or the factors that are at issue in the case, such as your client's injuries.

With regard to jurors, keep in mind that you really should not judge them based on appearance alone, which is why effective voir dire is essential.

Continue reading "CHICAGO TRIAL ATTORNEY SUGGESTS YOU MANAGE THE JURY'S EXPECTATIONS" »

As a plaintiff’s personal injury law firm, the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll deals with expert witnesses on an almost daily basis. Jeffrey J. Kroll has lectured to expert witness organizations on a number of occasions and the most common question asked of him is “what are you looking for in an expert witness?” What I want from an effective expert witness is simple - yet, difficult to find. Although Christopher Columbus sailed the Seven Seas, we set sail for different “C’s” in our search for an expert witness. What we seek in an expert witness is the following:

1. Credible - Another way of gauging an expert’s credibility is assessing his or her believability. Is this expert believable? If the expert has published something which is inconsistent with the opinions in your case, that could impact his or her credibility. It often takes years to build credibility as an expert witness and only one case to destroy it. Experts should be careful in getting involved in the wrong cases.

2. Competent - We often utilize teachers as experts. When an expert stays within their area of expertise, they often are very effective. Many experts get in trouble when they venture outside of their “sandbox,” their comfort zone. You need to find out the expert’s true area of expertise.

3. Convincing - I want an expert that is persuasive. An expert witness needs to recognize any nervous habits and figure out/discuss how to avoid them during their testimony. When the jury goes back to deliberate, I do not want them talking about how my expert fidgeted with a pen or looked at the ceiling before every answer. Convincing encompasses every part of examination, not just direct.

4. Confident - There is a fine line between confidence and cockiness. Jurors appreciate confidence. They do not like cockiness. An expert should attempt to maintain the same disposition on direct examination and cross examination.

5. Caring - When an expert appears that he or she is attempting to “right a wrong,” the system works. A jurors will see through the expert that is involved in the case solely for financial gain.

6. Creative - I like when an expert is able to assist me with developing a theme for the case. I like when an expert chooses exhibits that effectively gets across our case theme with the jury. An expert is an intrical part of the trial team and should be used to maximize their own effectiveness.

7. Communicate - Jurors are searching for their guide. They are searching for the teacher. I need an expert to persuasively communicate our theme, our message, to a jury.

If you think about it, the qualities that make someone a good dinner companion (personable, open, entertaining, engaging, fascinating) also makes a good expert witness. As a lawyer, I know that if a jury follows my experts in the battle of experts, it is because I won the battles of “C’s”.

The Chicago Sun-times recently reported that jurors are sending Twitter messages from courthouses across the country about their service. Experts said Tuesday that most messages posted to the social networking site are innocuous, perhaps expressing boredom.

But at least a few jurors have gone online to discuss cases they are helping decide.

In Philadelphia this week, a juror in a high-profile public corruption case told Facebook friends to “Stay tuned for a big announcement on Monday” — forecasting that a verdict was near.

Jurors are instructed by the judge presiding over their case that they are not to discuss the cases with anyone until they are dismissed upon the conclusion of the case. They are to judge the evidence in the case without outside influences. I support updating jury instructions to clarify that online communications about a case, via email, Facebook, Twitter, or otherwise are prohibited.

A recent study sponsored by Texas Tech University concludes that English-speaking Hispanics fare better in the courtroom than their non-English-speaking counterparts. In fact, a non-English-speaking Hispanic is 15% LESS likely than an English speaker to obtain a better jury trial verdict than the last settlement offer. This finding corresponds to a different study, published in the Social Sciences Quarterly , in which researchers found that Spanish-speaking Hispanics express less trust in juries than non-Hispanic whites and other English-speaking persons. The authors concluded that "faith in the jury as a more trustworthy decision-making body [than a judge] is weakest among those groups that have a history of discriminatory treatment in the legal system and who are less acculturated on other measures, such as language dominance."

The study noted that Hispanic individuals who do not speak English very well, or perhaps at all, must testify in Spanish which necessarily results in the use of a translator and perhaps some loss in communication with the jury. Consequently, "less than optimal communication between the plaintiff and the jury may result." Moreover, testifying in Spanish may subject the plaintiff to various biases, discrimination and prejudices. Such effects, the study notes, may be especially prevalent in group contexts, such as a jury of twelve individuals.

This study makes me question whether non-English-speaking plaintiffs are receiving the fair and impartial trial to which they are constitutionally entitled. This study raises important questions that policymakers, lawmakers and community leaders should consider and address. More importantly, a trial lawyer needs to take this into consideration when presenting evidence when representing a non-English speaking plaintiff.

Continue reading "ARE CIVIL JURIES PREJUDICED AGAINST NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PLAINTIFFS?" »

A juror’s responsibility is to pay attention, retain information and participate in jury deliberations. Does that conflict with some members of the venire? The percentage of Americans taking medication is rising and lawyers have begun asking potential jurors what kinds of medication they are actually taking. In fact, Science Daily cited a study from Boston University's Slone Epidemiology Center finding that in a given week, over 10 million Americans are taking opioids.

Of course, asking a jury whether or not they are on medication could be a death knell for a trial lawyer. You risk upsetting the judge and looking terrible in the eyes of jurors. Also, some judges maybe reluctant to allow such personal questions to be asked of potential jurors as it could be in direct conflict with the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

I think it could be very important to find out if a juror is taking a medication. Moreover, you want to know what they are taking. If a juror is taking some type of anti-depressant or mood changing medication, it could impact their ability to stay awake and alert during an extended trial. Some jurors, without any fault of their own, fall asleep during trials due to the medications they are taking. I believe lawyers have a right to know anything that can conceivably affect their client’s case.

I think the prudent course of action would be to ask a juror in some type of juror questionnaire or in open court, “are you taking any type of medication?” If the answer is yes, that issue should be addressed in a side bar, outside the presence of the other jurors. I believe this line of questioning could be appropriate in many types of cases. I am concerned about any juror who may be taking some type of anti-psychotic medication or some other medication that would be make them drowsy during a trial. The side effects of some drugs can interfere with the jurors’ ability to sit and concentrate during a trial. With the commercialization of many of these drugs and without many knowing the side effects, this line of questioning should be appropriate for a jury trial.

For additional information on this topic see the recent National Law Journal article, "What's Your Juror Taking?"

Continue reading "ARE JURORS TAKING MEDICATIONS INTERFERING WITH JURY SERVICE?" »