|
Dr. Singer has written numerous professional articles on litigation research, trial consulting, trial presentation, voir dire, jury focus groups, witness preparations, case analysis and related topics.
These articles have been published in leading legal and trial magazines, including Trial, Trial Lawyers Quarterly, The Practical Litigator, Trial Diplomacy Journal, Leader's Product Liability, Law Office Economics & Management, Wiley Expert Witness Update, The Law Works, and many others. She also authored The Psychologist and the Jury, Matthew Bender Publishers.
With attorney Pat Maloney, Singer is the coauthor of the three-volume
 Trials and Deliberations: Inside the Jury Room
a compilation of transcriptions and analyses of mock jurors' real-life discussions concerning every conceivable trial proceeding, including numerous practice areas of Civil, Criminal and Commercial law.
Description
Detailed insights into the jury's decision-making process, providing results obtained from thousands of mock trials, practical recommendations, and expert commentaries. Offers techniques and strategies for presenting your case in a way that will allow a jury to return a favorable verdict. Includes juror's perceptions of important issues, and actual juror conversations on cases similar to your own. Covers specific questions, juror personality types, and the use of visual aids. Examines recommended direct and cross-examination, convincing opening statements, closing arguments, and verdict prediction. Detailed section titles discuss: Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Commercial, Criminal, Governmental, Products Liability, and Torts.
The book was the first of its kind to provide actual juror deliberations regarding virtually every cause and/or action for civil trial disputes, as well as professional commentary interpreting the significance of the case-by-case deliberations. Shepards/McGraw-Hill published the book in 1992. It is presently published by West Law.
Trials and Deliberations: Inside the Jury Room
by Amy Singer and Pat Maloney, Sr.
Consult Trials and Deliberations: Inside the Jury Room for useful insights into the jury's decision-making process. This virtual library contains pertinent litigation psychology material.
Mock trials can provide valuable information about how a particular type of jury will resolve a specific issue or an entire case. Unfortunately, most cases cannot bear the expense of original research. Now Trials and Deliberations: Inside the Jury Room lets you draw upon invaluable results obtained in literally thousands of mock trials conducted by Trial Consultants, Inc.®
Additionally, Singer has been a contributing author to the Wiley Expert Witness Update, published by Wiley Law Publication.
Refer to Wiley Law Publications for numerous articles on the many aspects of jury selection, deselection and trial preparation written by Amy Singer, Ph.D., President of Trial Consultants, Inc.® Dr. Singer is a contributing author to the Wiley Expert Witness Update.
In addition to her many bylined articles and books, Singer and/or her professional practice have been cited in numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Psychology Today, Ladies' Home Journal, The Boston Globe, The Miami Herald, Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Orlando Business Journal, St. Petersburg Times, Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, The American Lawyer, The Miami Daily Business Review, and Lawyers Weekly USA.
Other Valuable Articles by Amy Singer, Ph.D.
A Guide to Preparing Your Expert Witness for Direct Examination
Trial Strategy Using Social Media Analytics
The Best Jury Research Format to Test Trial Themes - A version of this article first appeared in the October 1994 edition of TRIAL.
Challenging Jurors for Cause
Cuing Positive Memory Recall With Jurors - A version of this article first appeared in the October 1994 edition of TRIAL.
Dealing With Biased Jurors During Voir Dire- A version of this article first appeared in the April 1996 edition of TRIAL.
De-programming Jurors During Voir Dire- A version of this article first =
appeared in the April 1996 edition of TRIAL.
Don't Make Voir Dire So Difficult- A version of this article will appear in The Advocate.
Exploding the Myths
Getting Jurors to Deliberate in Front of You - A version of this article first appeared in the May 22, 1995 edition of Lawyers Weekly USA.
High Tech Advances in Litigation Research
Intellectual Property Cases
Jury Focus Groups
Jury Persuasion in Products Liability Pt. 1
Jury Persuasion in Products Liability Pt. 2
Jury-Validated Trial Themes- A version of this article first appeared in the October 1994 edition of TRIAL.
Jury Verdict Award Amounts
Litigation Intelligence Surveys-Products Liability
Litigation Intelligence Surveys:Invaluable Strategic Case Mapping & Settlement Tool - A version of this article will appear in The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers Journal.
Litigation Intelligence Surveys-Case Mapping
Post Verdict Interviews
Positive Feelings with Jurors
Professionally Prepared for Witness Prep
Reading The Jury - Defense
Reading The Jury - Plaintiff
Severely Challenged Plaintiff
Singerian Litigation Psychology
Successfully Settling the Case Through Surveys- A version of this article will appear in TRIAL.
Ten Common Mistakes
Trial Consulting for the Smaller Practitioner - A version of this article first appeared in the January 15, 1996 edition of The Florida Bar News.
Trial Consulting- A version of this article will appear in The Journal of Legal Nurse Consulting.
Using Psychology to Win in Court- A version of this article will appear in Trial Diplomacy Journal.
Voir Dire in Employment Law Cases
Witness Prep-Intellectual Property Cases Pt. 1
Witness Prep-Intellectual Property Cases Pt. 2
Women Attorneys at Disadvantage
Preparing the Child to Testify in Civil Actions- A version of this article first appeared in TRIAL.
9 Questions for Valid Voir Dire- A version of this article first appeared in a summer 2000 edition of the American Bar Association's "TortSource"
Picking a Jury in a Civil Case in Ohio- A version of this article first appeared in Ohio Trial.
|
| |
September 26, 2011
Posted in: Internet/Social Media, Technology, Voir Dire & Jury Selection
Today's online environment has brought about new possibilities and along with it, new terms. For years, trial consultants have had the option to conduct Face-to-Face Focus Groups and Online Research. Now, with the unprecedented influence of Social Media, trial consultants can take Online Research to another level with Social Media Analysis.
Social media, in short, is the use of web-based and mobile technologies to turn conversation into an interactive dialogue. Trial consultants can use a workbench to analyze content based on specific criteria they desire to use. On that workbench, trial consultants can identify Phrase Clouds (new topics or phrases that are used). Trial consultants can then analyze and evaluate data by trends, such as source, author, comment or time period. They can also start to notice social influence (by media source, topic, phrase cloud and author) and be able to perform a sentiment analysis (by topic, phrase cloud, source and author). Social Influencers won't go unnoticed as they are the key drivers of conversation about trial consultants' "mark" or criteria.
According to Nielsen’s third quarter social media report, "social networks and blogs reach nearly 80 percent of active U.S. Internet users and represent the majority of Americans' time online." Almost a quarter of the time these Americans spend online is passed on social networks and blogs, "Whether it’s a brand icon inviting customers to connect with a company on LinkedIn, a news ticker promoting an anchor's Twitter handle or an advertisement asking a consumer to 'Like' a product on Facebook, people are constantly being drive to social media.” . Needless to say, Americans feel more comfortable than ever sharing their thoughts, opinions and personal lives with millions online.
Nielsen's study, prompted curious individuals to do some searches on their own. Brand consultant Jeff Bullas pulled together a list of twenty stunning social media statistics. Among them, one out of nine people on the earth (roughly 750 million out of 6.94 billion people) are on Facebook; each user spends roughly fifteen and a half hours on the site, each month. There are over 2.5 million websites integrated with Facebook. "YouTube generates 92 billion page views per month…Wikipedia hosts 17 million articles… Twitter is handling 1.6 billion queries per day… Google+ was the fastest social network to reach 10 million users at 16 days" It's fair to say these statistics speak for themselves.
Casey Anthony's trial grabbed the attention of thousands of viewers across the nation. Unlike previous high publicity cases, viewers were not only getting information via televised, printed and online news; viewers were able to watch the entire trial online and freely share their comments with thousands of other avid watchers. Trial Consultants, Inc. followed every post, tweet and blog regarding this case. As a result, we gained great insight into social media analytics as an innovative trial strategy. We discovered that social media can be used not only for brand research (such as when Starbucks creates a Facebook page that allows users to rate their products and ad campaigns), but also in litigation.
It is estimated that there were over 40,000 online posts regarding the Anthony trial.
Orlando's WFTV blog alone was receiving more comments than the moderators could go through, receiving over 5 comments per second from viewers at one point. This was the first case where social media mining, farming and analytics were pro-actively used. When social media was in its infancy, private investigators began using Social Media Mining as part of their strategy; this however was being used in a very passive manner. This year in the Anthony trial, Trial Consultants, Inc. was able to incorporate Social Media Farming by taking information that was publicly shared by potential jurors and avid viewers in a more pro-active manner, using that information to make suggestions to the defense team. For example, as soon as we started seeing a pattern of negative comments about George Anthony, we advised the defense attorneys to start asking him tough questions, thereby focusing the negative attention on him while diverting it from Casey Anthony. Finally, we were able to then look at the trends within the blog comments and analyze the results which led to a successful defense tactic.
While it is obvious how Social Media can be advantageous in high publicity cases, how else can it be used? What if an attorney could get the same type of responses on a regular vehicular tort case that leads to a few broken bones, or on a case involving construction defect, or any type of case for that matter? With the right workbench, they can!
Imagine a program (or a mobile app) where attorneys can submit videos of opening statements (from both sides), witness interviews, depositions, pictures, etc. and get responses from hundreds of already active social media users online. Sure, you might think that only someone who has been involved in a car accident will want to share their opinions loud and clear but you'd be surprised. Many Americans already participate in online surveys to get a few Amazon bucks or airline miles, so why not give them richer content? We have developed a litigation social network web application that will allow attorneys to capture people's opinions and reactions in real time. This program will analyze any slice of data such as (but not limited to) a preselected portion of ADR/trial stimulus: depositions, demonstrative evidence, videotaped or live testimony or the complaint. Such a program can then organize comments and generate invaluable results.
We’ve all seen the success and popularity of Facebook. Part of that success can be attributed to Facebook’s ever evolving features. In an article posted to Website Magazine, Michael Garrity highlighted that unveiling new privacy features last month that are reminiscent of Google+ Circles, Facebook posted on their blog today about the new subscribe feature which is said to make it easier for you to alter your News Feed to block specific content, specify which friends you want to see more content from (and which you want less of) and hear directly from people you’re 'interested in but don’t know personally,' artists or politicians." In other words, Facebook is constantly moving to keep up or stay ahead of the competition.
Furthermore, Facebook has given marketers the ability to do something else with it: use it as a real-time focus group. Dave Williams, who runs a technology and media company, explained in an article posted to Ad Age Digital that Facebook's 'Like' feature, allows its members to associate themselves with specific brands, activities, entertainment choices and so forth. In turn, the 'Like' feature allows marketers to target specific users for their product advertisement, making marketing dollars go further and attaining impressive results.
Social Media Analytics is the answer when it comes to the future of litigation research. It has proven success in market research and it can now be used for a multitude of industries. While Face-to-Face focus groups have been getting the job done, it is well understood that it usually takes more than one group to produce valid results; according to an article by Elle Esse Smith on Chron News website, "market researchers know they've reached a point of saturation when no new responses are heard during the group session." Concurrently, traditional online research tends to be limited to the amount of questions and responses. Alternatively, social media analysis removes the barriers created by time and space while bringing a vast amount of feedback from users and/or participants. Below you will find a chart comparing the differences, similarities and advantages of face-to-face (F2F) focus groups, traditional online research and social media analysis.
Face to Face Focus Groups vs. Online Focus Groups vs. Social Media Analysis
How do each compare? What are the advantages of each?
|
|
F2F
|
Online
|
Social Media Analysis
|
|
Information
|
Qualitative
|
Quantitative
|
Quantitative
|
|
Participants
|
Pre-screened
|
Random quota sample
|
Random quota sample based on topic
|
|
Interaction
|
Controlled
|
Uncontrolled
|
Medium Control
|
|
Moderation
|
Moderated
|
Little or no moderator interaction
|
Can moderate depending on cyber network
|
|
Place and Time
|
Limited
|
Unlimited
|
Unlimited
|
|
Attorney Interaction
|
YES
|
NO
|
YES
|
|
Interaction between participants
|
YES
|
NO
|
YES
|
|
Visual Stimuli
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
Monitoring of Non-verbal Cues
|
YES
|
NO
|
NO
|
|
Statistical Analysis
|
NO
|
NO
|
YES
|
|
Rationale
|
When you want to see real time reactions of participants who can meet at a specific time and location. Allows you to change direction or focus at any point and test different approaches.
|
When you want multiple opinions and reactions of participants who cannot meet at a specific time and location. Allows you to get candid opinions of participants who are comfortable in their own environment.
|
When you want multiple opinions of participants who cannot meet at a specific time and location. Allows you to change direction or focus at any point and test different approaches.
|
|
First Started
|
In the 1950's
|
Widespread in mid to late 1990's
|
2011
|
|
Acceptance of Methodology
|
Almost 100% accepted, often seen as a preferred method.
|
Mostly used in high-tech applications. Acceptance is growing.
|
Too early to judge.
|
|
Richest Expression, Greatest Results for Interpretation
|
Body language, facial expression, in addition to questionnaires and discussion.
|
Most personal expression is lost. Difficult to interpret based on words or even emoticons.
|
Free response allows participants to emphasize their thoughts or feelings.
|
Workbench/Stimulus Materials
|
Unlimited types of stimulus materials.
|
Limited to words and few pictures.
|
Video Streaming allows unlimited types of stimulus materials.
|
|
Following the Thread of the Conversation
|
Not a problem.
|
Sometimes difficult as online participants can respond at the same time as each other or veer off to different subjects.
|
Difficulty depends on analytic tool used.
|
|
Amount of Information
|
Unlimited within time and space
|
About 1/3 less words per unit time.
|
Unlimited.
|
|
Technology Bias
|
None
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Honesty of Responses
|
Participants may encourage each other but not all will give candid opinions.
|
Full due to anonymity.
|
Not concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Set-up
|
Hard. Must obtain place and participants who are willing and able to attend at specific time.
|
Easy.
|
Extremely Broad. Can create and upload all content. Can mine existing data as well.
|
|
Show-up Rates
|
50-80%
|
<50%
|
Unknown
|
|
Ability to Reach/Recruit
|
Poor. Reason why phone and online groups were invented.
|
Better than F2F but not nearly as good as SM due to acceptance and show up rates.
|
Easiest. Can be used in all cases, not just high profile.
|
|
Opportunity for Dominators to Sabotage Group
|
Can be difficult to control as you would not want to kick someone out of an already small group.
|
The person who types the fastest wins. Voice dictation allows someone to type 3 times as fast as regular folks. It is easy to kick someone out without hurting the sample size.
|
Same as online. It is easy to kick someone out without hurting the sample size.
|
|
Turnaround for Recruiting, Executing and Reporting on Groups.
|
The slowest of the 3 methods.
|
Much superior to F2F.
|
Likely to become the most superior out of the 3.
|
|
Bias Issues
|
Lower potential for bias than online as one can recruit as diverse of a group as desired.
|
Higher opportunity for bias as there is a low recruitment rate.
|
Highest opportunity for bias as one cannot control the participants who chose to comment about specific issues.
|
|
Personal Questions Can Be Addressed While Remaining Anonymous
|
NO
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
Sampling Advantages
|
Notorious Problems within
F2F groups
|
Many advantages due to anonymity
|
The sample is in the comments.
|
|
Availability of the Technology to the Participants
|
Participants might not show up due to weather, traffic, car problems, etc.
|
Over 70% of Americans have a computer at home
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversation Flow
|
Usually natural but easy to break into side conversations or feel ignored.
|
Parallel typing creates a disjointed conversation by nature.
|
|
Possible Recruiting Bias to Self-Selected Participants
|
Most F2F groups are not self-selected. Some facilities to offer that option but should be avoided.
|
Often participants self-selected when they chose to sign up on a website. Can be avoided as recruitment procedures are available.
|
|
Difficulty of Getting In-Depth Information
|
Known for its effectiveness in getting in-depth information.
|
Least effective way as participants can refuse to answer or give short answers.
|
Not as good as F2F, however, easy if accessing discussion groups. If moderating, participants can be probed or encouraged to provide more in-depth information.
|
|
Participation Issues
|
Show up rates is usually unpredictable. Once warmed up, participants are usually extremely involved.
|
Respondents often lose interest and drop out mid-research. No-shows are high.
|
None.
|
|
Group Control Issues
|
Groups can get out of hand but it's up to the moderator to keep everyone from talking at once, etc.
|
Amount of text streaming can be overwhelming to moderator and respondents.
|
Text streaming can be overwhelming but not when participants are forced to classify posts into different categories.
|
|
Skills Needed to Participate
|
Speak clearly and understand language of discussion.
|
Almost completely dependent on typing skills. Must have ability to log on and follow participation instructions on a computer.
|
|
Novelty Effect on Recruitment Rates
|
This is the oldest method. Some people are tired of having to travel to facilities to be able to participate in groups.
|
Higher acceptance rates due to convenience.
|
Should be highly accepted. Already creating a lot of interest.
|
|
Client Novelty Effect
|
Tried and true method.
|
Has become widely accepted over the last few years.
|
Becoming widely accepted.
|
|
Travel Time and Expenses
|
YES
|
NO
|
NO
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Sensitive" Topics
|
Hard to get participants to open up.
|
These methods create ideal environment for participant to open up due to group support effect and anonymity.
|
|
Participation on Respondents' Schedule
|
NO
|
YES – Participants can chose to respond at their own convenience
|
Somewhat, depending on type of group/website
|
|
Ability to Moderate
|
Likely the easiest method
|
Fairly easy as moderators do not have to think as quickly on their feet, although they do have to process a lot of information at once. Not a problem for experienced moderators.
|
|
Psychological Safety of Participants
|
Lowest of the 3 as participants can be easily intimidated by other participants looking at them. Even experienced moderators have to work hard to make participants open up.
|
Equally high as participants can't even hear each other's tone of voice.
|
|
Immediate Transcripts
|
Takes a few days to organize results.
|
Available during session.
|
|
|
