The Persuasive Edge by Richard J. Crawford, Ph.D. and Charlotte A. Morris, M.A.

    The Persuasive Edge was a cool book about how to be persuasive to a judge or jury in trial, written by trial consultants who are experts in persuasion. There were a lot of really good lessons in it.

    For one, in a jury trial, an attorney needs to have a strategy that enables the person who agrees with him to make his case to those who don't. That means teaching the means of persuasion to those who are likely to use it to convince others. This means that a lot of the book, maybe a third or more, is about jury selection and developing the jury in voir dire. This is incredibly difficult, since selecting jurors based on how they answer questions relies on really good questions and very insightful understanding of the answers. The selection should start with knowledge of certain characteristics the attorney is looking for in jurors, and approach questioning in a funnel shape, starting broad, with open-ended questions, and working small, into more specific questions, before moving to another topic. At the end of questions, the lawyer can introduce the persuasion point, and try to develop connection with a juror that can be used in opening statement or closing argument, as well as in examination of witnesses. The book also talks about juror self-identity, and how a juror who sees herself as a leader is less likely to give in to another juror's opinion.

    The whole book is about entertainment. In discussing the opening statement, the authors say it's not best used as a time to preview the case, but as a time to sell the whole case, motivate the jury, and gain sympathy for your side. They emphasize using a narrative and making it interesting. In questioning witnesses, the sequence of events must be ordered to maximize the effect of the important part of the witness' testimony. The authors emphasize the anticlimactic over the climactic. Get the pivotal or essential point out early, and then fill in the background. Then, return to the most important thing to end the questioning. On cross-examination, let the members know that you are in control even when you're not. They tell the story of a lawyer who gets the opposite answer than they wanted, and instead of expressing shock, expresses a sense of victory, and declares, "Exactly!" and moves on to the next question quickly before anyone can realize the answer didn't help. That's a bold one. The authors come back to trust, competence, and likability. Everything a lawyer does in the courtroom should build or convey one of those three attributes. With the jurors believing that the lawyer is trustworthy, competent, and likable, they are more likely to find for their side. Moreover, that lawyer has hopefully used some of what the jurors said in voir dire to develop his or her themes for discussion of the case.

Miscellaneous:

• The authors point out that experts with experience in teaching are often the best at testifying in trial, when they need to teach the jury your view of the case.