• Initial Case Arrival (including Venue Testing)
• Witness Determination
• Communication Testing
• Argument Development
• Mediation
• Mock Trials
• During/After Trial

• ConjointJuror™
  • Provides "triage"-like assessments, using c.500 interviews to provide litigator with the anticipated range of juror views
  • Allows for more structured case development
• In-Depth Interviewing
  • Gain a priori view of potential juror attitudes, emotional involvement, and identification with aspects of case
  • Allows for more focused / less expensive case development
• Venue Testing
  • Provides statistically significant examination of venue, determining number of potential jurors who are aware of and/or have opinions about the litigation
  • Provides specific data for change-of-venue motions

Litigation Phase: Witness Determination

• Conduct Large-Scale Individual Interviewing
  • Conduct large numbers of "screening" interviews with prospective witnesses, class members, experts, others
  • Extremely cost-effective means of both gathering information and winnowing lists of possible witnesses prior to depositions (and expensive attorney involvement in interview process)
  • Results provided on audio tape, video tape, verbatim transcription, and/or written summary report(s)

Litigation Phase: Communication Testing

• Witness Communication Testing
  • Utilizing JurorView™and other communication testing techniques determine juror interpretations resulting from specific witness testimony
  • Verify that not only specific information is correctly communicated, but that the testimony is understood and reaches emotional anchors by identifying correctly with prospective jurors
• Exhibit Testing
  • Utilizing JurorView™ and other communication testing techniques (as above) test/verify specific information conveyed (and imagery derived) from exhibits shown during trial
  • Testing can be done at any stage of exhibit development, from sketch art to final, full-sized pieces

Litigation Phase: Argument Development

• Description of Jury Pool
  • Utilize various statistical, large-scale, quantitative techniques to identify preconceptions of the potential jury pool
  • Identify voir dire questions that might be used to identify preconceptions of potential jurors
• Argument Positioning
  • Utilize various communication and persuasion techniques to lower the risk involved in selecting among several possible case anchors
  • Contrast/compare various opening and/or closing arguments
    • Applicability to case anchors
    • Verify acceptance, relevance, identification, and believability of arguments
    • Verify argument order of presentation

Litigation Phase: Mediation

• Estimate Case Outcome
  • Can provide possible outcomes on statistical basis
  • Use results as a base for effective mediation, knowing range of possible jury verdicts in advance
• Third-Party Interviewing
  • As a third-party, not directly involved in case, can serve as intermediary, interviewing both those involved and potential witness to determine effective bargaining positionings to save time/expense in negotiations

Litigation Phase: Mock Trials

• JurorView™
  • Utilize JurorView™ (or other techniques as appropriate) to provide unique insight into the minds of potential jurors viewing key case facts, anchors, and arguments
  • Reduces risk while providing litigator with juror's own words, feelings, personalizations, and relevant backgrounds utilized in decision-rendering

Litigation Phase: During/After Trial

• Concurrent Jurors
  • Utilize a concurrent pool of jurors in the courtroom
  • Interview individually during the trial
  • Provides real-time insight into "true" communications, yielding any problems (along with optimized solution sets) in sufficient time to deal with any problems (for client side) or take advantage of problems (on opposing side)
• Juror Polling
  • After trial, conduct individual interviews with jury members to "debrief", determining reasons for decisions made and providing learning for future cases

Back to TOP