Customer Reviews

The Hidden Jury: And Other Secret Tactics Lawyers Use to Win

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I'm not ordinarily a big fan of legal books, but I strongly recommend this one. I walked away with an in-depth knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes in the life of a jury consultant. Lisnek sprinkles his book with enticing stories of what happened with real life normal cases, as well as famous trials such as the O.J. Simpson trial, Heidi Fleiss trial and Whitewater. It's amazing, and sometimes unsettling, to see how the prepartory work can influence the outcome of a trial. Nevertheless, it is not sneaky or underhanded, but extensive research, hard work and common sense. Lisnek is a decent and intelligent man. He recognizes the importance of understanding human nature, and the powerful impact of perception with potential and real jurors. It's a refreshing and unusual look at the jury system from someone who knows it inside and out. Even if you are remotely interested in law, you would enjoy this book. And, if you need to go to court, make absolutely sure your lawyer has a copy. A terrific read!

The Hidden Jury by trial lawyer, educator, author, trial consultant and communications expert Paul M. Lisnek is a fact- and advice-filled expose of how the American court system truly works, with all its virtues and pitfalls. From mock trials that have a disproportionate impact on the final verdict; to the trial services that only the wealthiest clients can afford; to techniques used by lawyers to present their case and sway observers' minds as forcefully as possible; to the real workings of power within the courtroom, The Hidden Jury is very strongly recommended reading for anyone involved in, or pursuing a career with, the American criminal or civil legal system today.

Very disappointed in this title, which would have benefited from greater editorial oversight, including substantial redaction and re-writing. While the book contains a promising organizational structure, the text is wordy. One has to wade through paragraphs that are are redundant or void of specific meaning in order to glean the author's point. I don't think the author is purposefully padding, but half of the book could have been cut without harm done.

The author's constant use of anecdote is frustrating. His point seems to be that his personal experience is instructive of the what happens before and during jury trials at large. While that may be the case, he doesn't persuade me of that.

I am not sure I would agree with his logical argument either. His premise is shaky, and I found myself unpersuaded that the use of jury consultancy services is either sincere or honest. Instead, it appears to be merely another weapon in the arsenal of persuasion -- a weapon that takes advantage of jurors' fallibities -- and eschews an understanding of the higher purpose of judgement by jury.

The assumption is that jurors come in with biases. Naturally, we all have them. But instead of asking jurors to put aside these biases to the extent possible, the author would rather play to their biases and exploit them since no one, as he states, can possibly be objective. Why? Because no one can have sufficient knowledge of all facts and potentialities to allow objectivity (the "God" theory, one might call it). (Is this true? Can no one recognize and put aside for the moment, in the judgement of others, those ideas and values they hold dearest?)

Contradictorily, he also claims that community research conducted by jury consultants, such as he is, is objectively believable, even if limited to phone interviews with as few as 50 targets. One simply can't have it both ways.

Well, what of the biases of the jury researchers? If jury research can be made "objective," or nearly so, then surely jurors surely can be asked to put aside whatever bias they may have for the length of the jury trial. This is the logical failure of Mr. Lisnek's argument, one that detracts from the overall effectiveness of the book.

I bought "The Hidden Jury" because I'm a criminal attorney who likes to try cases. Although I have a strong background in the social sciences (2 M.A.s), I knew little about trial consulting and was hoping to learn something useful. I should have bought a different book.

Mock trials and focus groups are certainly good ways for a lawyer to practice and hone his presentation prior to a trial, but as you can tell from the book, these tools mostly help lawyers avoid screwing up, they don't hand over some magic key to the mind of a specific jury. Opinion research has limited value, also. Lisnek is happy using samples of only 50 people (the bare minimum for statistical significance) which reduces reliability overall and for particular subgroups w/in a population. For example, among 50 respondents, only 2 may have college degrees, making the sample worthless for predicting how college educated individuals will actually behave. In fact, as the author admits, bad cases can't be fixed by using any of these tools, even under the best circumstances (unlimited money). The author's observations about non-verbal communication are limited in scope and usefulness. More useful hints could be extracted from rhetoric and persuasion texts, including "On Rhetoric" by Aristotle. There is nothing new here.

In the end, I think Lisnek's value is that he brings together some services that lawyers without a social science background (or who lack advanced trial training) may not be able to use on their own. But any trial lawyer worth his salt should already have access to these tools without having to pay the premium that Lisnek demands. It really isn't that tough, for example, to get a group of people together to watch some lawyers practice for a trial, especially if you're paying them. Heck, at my law school students volunteered to watch mock trials. The customized opinion research is tougher, but there are lots of hungry grad students in this world who will work cheaper and who could do at least as good a job as Lisnek describes. A good local trial attorney should already have a feel for local opinion and would be cheaper to hire than Lisnek.

The book, then, is eye opening only to someone who has never taken a decent look at our justice system. For lawyers, it will serve as little more than a prolonged (and often redundant) advertisement for trial consultants. For lay people, it will provide little insight into how these tools really fit into the process. Generally, it is a poor argument for either the jury system or trial consulting. Bottom line: If you want to learn about how juries work, you need to go elsewhere, as I must now do. Sadly, even if you are just looking for a very basic intro to trial consultancy, this book is poorly edited, often redundant, and stupifyingly boring in parts. Skip it.

This book didn't give much new insight. I thought it might have a lot of information about what typical jurors think and which tactics work best. It was mostly a book about telling you you need to use jury consultants.