New research points to an increasingly more formidable burden for lawyers and communications professionals embroiled in high-profile litigation.
It’s called the “CSI Effect,” named after crime sscene investigation TV shows. In the world of mass media jurisprudence, DNA tests are virtually always conclusive, fuzzy photos are made crystal clear, audio tapes are enhanced to reveal nuanced dialects, and witnesses always have the sharpest memories as they recall verdict-deciding details.
It’s riveting television, perhaps, but fundamentally disconnected from standard trial practice and forensic reality. The public, including jurors and prospective jurors, now expects an unreasonably heightened level of ironclad evidence from both defendants and plaintiffs or prosecutors. In the Court of Public Opinion, the CSI Effect is creating a real crisis by increasing the burden on both sides to make their cases credible.
In both courts, you either have to somehow play around these elevated expectations – or else run to the crisis by openly acknowledging the problem and speaking directly to it. In trial, that means defining the CSI Effect during openings or closings, and explicitly reminding juries of the synapse between their expectations and what should be regarded as reasonable supportive evidence or testimony. It doesn’t have to be just the judge’s job.
Outside court, both the defense and plaintiffs bar have a mutual interest in educating the public. Both sides can collaborate in getting the message out as broadly as possible, reaching prospective jurors via the tabloids as well as the New York Times. The fact that the “CSI Effect” is already a media-friendly, catchy terminology should make mass print and broadcast media outlets receptive to op-eds and commentary in their news stories on high-profile cases.
Meeting the CSI Effect head-on is one strategic response. Another is by enhancing courtroom and public communications in ways that counter the CSI Effect – and the way to do that is by communicating more persuasively on all fronts before, during, and after trial.
Additional recent research supports what communications professionals have long advised are key persuasion techniques. A study by Animators at Law (http://www.animators.com/), a visual communications consulting firm, found that, while more than 60 percent of the general public learns best through visual information, most lawyers do not. They learn by hearing and tend to present courtroom evidence by speaking.
As such, communicators, particularly lawyers, must generate ever more powerful visual elements to offset the CSI Effect. Perhaps there is an actual picture that can dazzle the audience – something akin, perhaps, to the hanging chads that changed history when people actually formulated conclusions based on what they were seeing. Alternatively, infuse your verbal communications with visual elements. Use language that allows your listeners to see what you are talking about.
The Animators at Law report, “Attorney Communication Style Study,” advises that, in a typical trial, there are seven “visual” jurors, three “feeling” jurors, and two “hearing” jurors. For the feeling audience, think in terms of evoking “gut reactions.” Meanwhile, predominantly aural litigators “under-communicat[e] with 83% of the jury,” according to the study.
There’s a famous dictum on public speaking: “Engage the senses.”
http://www.articlefrenzy.com/Article/The-CSI-Effect--The-Litigation-PR-Burden-Gets-Heavier/82547
