The most traditional format for Mock Trials is having attorneys present the arguments of both sides.  The session can be as simple as each Attorney making a single 15-minute Presentation, to a full-blown project with witness testimony, cross examinations, evidence, a judge, etc.  (My longest mock trial lasted 5 days).  When I first began jury consulting in 1990, this is the method I embraced, as well.  However, by chance, I was conducting a research session for a power company when a new approach emerged.

It was a personal injury case where a woman  had driven into the back of an electric truck during an ice storm.  There was a pole extending out the back of the truck, which rammed through the car's front window upon impact.  The Plaintiff sustained a major head injury and claimed that the utility worker did not put out the proper warning cones to warn oncoming traffic of the truck being parked in the street.

My client on this case was the Power Company.  The night before the research session, the attorney that was supposed to be presenting the Defendant's case became ill.  We faced the propsect of calling 30 respondents ("mock jurors") 10 hours before the session and cancelling.  Since most of our sessions take place during the week, many of these people took off work to participate in the project ($100 cash is a good enticement).  It would have only been right to pay them the $100 stipend promised.  Having to pay them again two weeks later would have cost the client another $3000.

I hate to waste money, so I tried to salvage the research session.  I offered to narrate the group, presenting both side's arguments in a neutral fashion.  The clients were perceptive to the concept.  I stayed up most of the night creating a case description based solely on the facts of the case.  My idea was to present a "bare-bones" description of the case, get the groups reactions, then feed them some strong Plaintiff and Defense arguments one at a time thereafter, getting their reactions on each argument.

What grew out of this research session was the most reliable, insightful research methodology I've come across in the last 20 years.  By feeding the "jurors" small pieces of information at a time, we can pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of the case more effectively.  Eliminating the attorney presentations removes the personalities from the case, which only makes sense since the client can never duplicate the personality of the attorney that will be presenting at the real trial.  My clients were very pleased with the session.

Attorneys love this format because they can attend the research session and concentrate on the opinions of the participants, rather than worrying about their presentations.  When comparing the actual trial verdicts with the verdicts reached at the research session, our signature methodology is always closer to the actual outcome.

There are rare circumstances where live presentations are warranted in the research.  An attorney might want feedback on their presentation style or image, or the client may want to compare the order in which they deliver the content.  (ie:  is it better to throw out a weakness at the beginning or the end?)

The exciting part of this work resolves around adapting a research session that will generate the most usable information for your client.  It's definitely more of an art than a science.