Every case has bad facts. But should you deal with it only after the opponent introduces it at trial – or is it better to “inoculate” the jury against the bad facts by first introducing it in a weakened form? While the conventional wisdom states that inoculating the jury at an early stage is the preferred approach, in the past 20 years a vocal minority of commentators created confusion on the issue by mounting a fierce assault on the conventional thinking.
In this thought provoking CLE course, veteran trial attorney Quentin Brogdon will share his thoughts on how to best deal with the bad facts in your cases. Quentin will cover how jurors deal with bad facts, the positives & negatives of inoculating the jury, considering the sponsorship theory and additional trial strategies to limit the effects of bad facts. He will also discuss the mindset of the jury, the importance of the plaintiff, cognitive dissonance, the severity effect, types of bad facts, rational fears, fear factors, counseling clients, 3 lessons on sponsorship, the Rice-Legger Study, self-flogging ads, turning strengths into weakness, motions in limine, limiting instructions, failing to preserve error, possible waiver of appellate points of error when adopting an inoculation approach, Ohler v. U.S. (2000).
A seasoned trial attorney, Quentin Brogdon is a Fellow in the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. He has been selected as one of its “Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in America,” selected by the National Trial Lawyers as one of the Top 100 Texas Trial Lawyers, selected by the National Association of Distinguished Counsel as one of the Nations’ Top One Percent, and selected by D Magazine as one the “Best Lawyers in Dallas.”