Communication for the sexes

Over at The Jury Expert, Laura Dominic looked at the different styles of communication that men and women use in the courtroom. Ms. Dominic points out that it's not what you say, but how you say it that conveys authority.

Whether you win or lose, of course, depends on the facts, but how your message is received by the jury, judge, mediator, or the arbitrator plays a role. When it comes to communication behaviors, there are verbal and nonverbal elements that affect credibility, and there are general differences in the way men and women communicate. Some pose advantages for each gender, and some pose disadvantages. The good news is that there are teachable/learnable verbal and nonverbal elements of presentation that drive credibility, and a lawyer's credibility is a key component in persuasion.

Ms. Dominic looks at the differences between men and women in both verbal and nonverbal communication and makes some interesting observations.

She says that men are conditioned while young to use words that are more "task-oriented" than women. A male attorney is more likely to say "The point is..." or "I need you to..." while a female attorney will attempt to build a better rapport with the jury by using "We" and "I see." She also points out that men are more likely to use statements as leading questions while women tend to make it more of a question. She also points out that women  are more likely to use intensifiers and hedgers such as "Very," "I think," and "Maybe" than men.

While building rapport might be a better path to getting the jury on your side, using intensifiers and hedgers will hurt your credibility.

Ms. Dominic also points out differences between men and women in regard to eye contact, voice tone, and body and head position. She says that women are more likely to look someone in the eye - until they come into conflict - than men. Interestingly enough, men and women assume an open body position at different times: men when feeling uncomfortable and women when feeling comfortable. Women seem to use nonverbal cues to indicate interest more so than men.

Each of us can benefit by identifying those traits that hinder our credibility, and focusing on changing behaviors that will increase our effectiveness. When we understand the messages that our verbal and nonverbal communication cues send, we can begin to hone the traits that negatively impact our credibility and refine those that capitalize on our strengths. 

Next time you're in the courtroom, watch how the people around you are communicating, both verbally and nonverbally, and see if you can pick out of the behaviors noted by Ms. Dominic.

Welcome to the People's Republic of Maryland

The State of Maryland is contemplating a rule that would ban people from carrying communication devices, including cell phones, into courthouses. The judiciary rules committee (or Chinese politburo) is up in arms over Facebook, Twitter, blogs and the like shedding a little bit of light on what goes on behind the walls of the courthouse.

Proponents of the ban say it would protect witnesses from having their pictures snapped by "snitch" hunters carrying cell phones.

A person may not bring any electronic device into any court facility. -- Maryland's proposed policy

I hate to be the one bearing bad news but the Chinese, the Soviets and every other totalitarian regime has tried to restrict the flow of information but cyberspace knows no boundaries (except for the self-imposed ones companies have implemented when bowing down to kiss the feet of the Chinese dictators). The only entities that fear the public's access to information are those entities that have something they wish to hide.

Anyone arrested in this country has the right to a public trial -- and the public includes the blogosphere, Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites.

A couple of quick hits

So, Justice Scalia thinks the time for the exclusionary rule has passed because the police are more professional now than they were "in the day?" Isn't that a better argument for the continuation, not elimination, of the rule?

Today I gave a presentation on voir dire to the Houston Municipal Justice Bar Association. It was the first time I've made a presentation to my peers. After I got over my initial nervousness, my talk went well. I figure if I can be comfortable talking to a room full of lawyers that talking to a jury panel will be that much easier.

Coaching and communicating

I can't help but think that coaching a U6 (under 6-year old) soccer team has to have some benefit when it comes to communicating with a jury.  In both cases we are taking people out of their normal routine and dropping them off in unfamiliar territory.

In the case of the kids, they may have seen older siblings playing soccer and know that it involves kicking a ball, but they don't know the skills involved or the importance of playing together as a team.  As far as jurors go, most of what they think they know about trials comes from movies and television - which may or may not bear any resemblance to what we see at the courthouse on a daily basis.

Now, just like the kids, adults in for jury duty have to learn how to work together as a panel. They have to learn the dynamics of the panel and of the room in general.  They have to learn the rules of conduct.  They have to adjust to a (completely) different mode of thinking.

Kids have to learn how to kick the ball properly.  They have to learn how to dribble, how to pass, how to stop the ball and how to shoot.  They have to learn that success is achieved when all of the pieces work together and for a common goal.  Most importantly, they have to learn to trust their coach.

And how does a coach earn the trust of his young charges?  By talking with them, not at them. By using words the kids can understand.  By being understanding.  By observing how different kids learn in different ways.  By knowing which kids need words of encouragement, a high five or a hug.  By being patient and realizing that kids move at different speeds.  By communicating with the kids' parents.  By understanding that the game should be fun and that the kids should look forward to practice and games.  By recognizing the dynamics of the group and the relationships among the players.

At trial our mission must be to earn the trust of the jury panel.  If the jury panel doesn't trust you, it won't matter how logical and reasonable your argument is -- they won't accept it.  If, on the other hand, the panel trusts the attorney, they may be willing to bend over backwards to help him out.  They may be more willing to give your client the benefit of the doubt.

While there's not a direct relation between coaching youth soccer and communicating with a jury, it is a good analogy and a different way of thinking about how best to serve our clients.