Improving Settlements

Counsel shared JuryTest results with a mediator, changing his views as to the likely outcome of trial and resulting in change in his conversation with the adverse party and resulting in a lower settlement number.

Witness Evaluation

A medical malpractice defense lawyer was worried that her client's mannerisms would play badly to the jury and was strongly pushing settlement. JuryTest jurors watched the doctor's deposition video and offered very positive reactions to the doctor, finding his quirks endearing instead of alienating. This feedback led to a decision to try the case and a defense verdict, averting a settlement close to $1 million.

Picking the Jury

JuryTest revealed that men favored the defense two to one, whereas female jurors were slightly plaintiff leaning. This information was used in deciding to see the case to verdict with a jury that was comprised three-quarters of men. The jury returned a defense verdict in less than thirty minutes.

Optimizing Trial Strategy

JuryTest jurors told a defense lawyer in a corporate insurance case that his references to his client's memory problems was unpersuasive. The lawyer adjusted his approach and shifted his emphasis to addressing the actions and knowledge of the plaintiff instead.

Presentation of Damages

JuryTest jurors told a plaintiff's lawyer that they doubted the extent of his client's damages, and even the credibility of the case, upon viewing pictures designed to exhibit the plaintiff's injuries. Jurors said the plaintiff's general appearance of excellent fitness raised doubts in their minds about him.
Based on this feedback, the lawyer made adjustments in how he presented his client and decided to demonstrate his impairments in court, rather than rely solely on expert statements about this. At trial, the jury decided in his favor, with an award of $1.5 million.

Hurricane Katrina

A large insurance carrier had major exposure to home damage in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, including policies covering wind-only damage. They presented a case depicting flood damage they alleged was excluded from their policy. JuryTest jurors from the flood-damaged area showed little sympathy for distinctions between wind and water damage under the particular facts of these situations. The insurance company adjusted their risk assessment and modified their settlement offers in order to avoid costly trials and adverse verdicts.