Rebuilding Credibility in the Courtroom: Lessons for Trial Lawyers in an Age of Skepticism
During my time as a trial judge, I watched the courtroom change, not just in technology or procedure, but in the attitudes of the jurors. Over time, their trust in authority, in lawyers, in institutions, and sometimes even in the process itself, began to erode. Now, as a trial consultant, I see that same shift play out across mock trials and headline verdicts. Today’s jurors are more skeptical, less deferential, and far more discerning.
A recent Pew Research Center report finds that only 34% of Americans believe most people can be trusted, down from 46% in 1972 (Pew Research Center, 2025). Trust is especially low among younger adults, people with less formal education, and communities of color. This is not just a social challenge—it’s a courtroom reality.
Skepticism shows up in every phase of trial: in jurors’ eye contact, their posture during voir dire, their resistance to expert testimony, their private deliberation quotes. They are not hostile. They are cautious. And in this environment, persuasion is no longer about commanding belief. It’s about earning it.
Political scientist Pippa Norris, in In Praise of Skepticism: Trust but Verify, offers a helpful frame. Trust, she writes, should not be automatic. It should be conditional, earned through demonstrated integrity and transparency (Norris, 2022). That resonates with what I see in today’s jury research. Jurors are not looking for someone to tell them what to think. They’re looking for a reason to believe what they see.
That shift in mindset is something I’ve witnessed again and again, from voir dire to verdict. Jurors don’t need to be convinced by authority figures: They need to feel respected, engaged, and empowered. And when they are, they listen. That’s where the opportunity lies. Jurors are not looking for someone to tell them what to think. They’re looking for a reason to believe what they see.
- Don’t Rely on Titles. Rely on Humanity.
In mock trials I’ve led, I often see highly credentialed experts lose jurors within minutes. Not because of what they know, but because of how they act. Jurors care less about a person's credentials and more about their presence and demeanor in the courtroom.
A witness who admits what they don’t know, speaks plainly, and treats jurors like equals builds more trust than one who lectures from a pedestal. The same goes for attorneys. Rehearsed performances, rigid outlines, and jargon-heavy openings often fail to connect. We cannot rely on authority to carry the message. Today’s jurors need to feel like someone is talking with them, not at them.
- Own the Weaknesses Before the Jurors Do
Nothing triggers a juror’s suspicion faster than a glossed-over flaw. In focus groups, we routinely hear some version of this: “If they had just admitted the mistake, I would have moved on.”
Acknowledging fault, especially when it’s limited or already known, tells jurors you respect their intelligence. More importantly, it reframes how they process that weakness. If the defense owns it first, it becomes context. If jurors discover it on their own, it becomes a cover-up. That’s a costly distinction.
The most effective admissions are brief, direct, and purposeful. They say: “Yes, this happened. Here is why. Here is what we did about it.” No spin. No blame-shifting. Just facts and responsibility.
- Put the Right People on the Stand
I often advise trial teams: your most persuasive witness may not have a fancy title. It might be the person closest to the facts.
Mid-level managers, field workers, team leads. Jurors respond to people who were actually there. They bring authenticity that executives, despite their polish, often lack. These witnesses speak in real terms, express human doubt, and describe split-second decisions with genuine clarity. Jurors respect that.
This is not about downgrading your case. It’s about matching the moment. Skeptical jurors want honesty. They want story, not script. The more relatable the witness, the more persuasive the testimony.
- Voir Dire Should Probe for Trust
In voir dire, ask not just what jurors believe, but how they decide who to believe. Trust is no longer the default. It’s earned in layers. And if you can find what makes someone credible to them, you’ll know whether your case stands a chance.
Consider questions like:
- Who do you turn to when you need advice you can trust?
- What makes someone seem believable to you?
- Have you ever changed your mind about a person after getting to know them better?
These aren’t just warm-up questions. They reveal how jurors filter information and whether that filter is compatible with your trial strategy.
-
Build a Trial Home That Feels Just
One of the most overlooked questions in trial prep is this: If jurors find in our favor, have we made it easy for them to do so?
I call it building a "trial home." It’s the moral and narrative space that lets jurors feel good about their verdict. Especially in cases involving serious injury or complex institutions, jurors want more than legal permission. They want a principled reason.
A trial home sounds like this:
- "The company made a mistake. But they took real responsibility."
- "He was acting personally, not professionally."
- "There’s a difference between an accident and negligence."
It’s not spin. It’s clarity. And clarity builds trust.
Conclusion: We Can Reach Skeptical Jurors
Psychologist Jamil Zaki, in Hope for Cynics, calls for "hopeful skepticism"—the idea that doubt and belief can coexist (Zaki, 2024). That balance is exactly what today’s jurors bring to court. They want to be convinced, but not manipulated. They want to trust, but only if it’s earned.
As a consultant, my job is to help trial teams understand that mindset and adjust accordingly. If your case hinges on authority alone, it might fall flat. But if your story is honest, your witnesses are relatable, and your trial strategy respects the jury’s discernment, you can still win their trust. Even in this climate.
If that’s what you’re trying to do, First Court is here to assist.
References:
Norris, P. (2022). In praise of skepticism: Trust but verify. Oxford University Press. https://ash.harvard.edu/resources/in-praise-of-skepticism-trust-but-verify
Pew Research Center. (2019, July 22). Trust and distrust in America. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/
Pew Research Center. (2025, May 8). Americans’ trust in one another. https://www.pewresearch.org/2025/05/08/americans-trust-in-one-another/
Shearer, E., & Eddy, K. (2025, May 8). Republicans have become more likely since 2024 to trust information from news outlets, social media. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/05/08/republicans-have-become-more-likely-since-2024-to-trust-information-from-news-outlets-social-media/
Tyson, A., & Kennedy, B. (2024, November 14). Public trust in scientists and views on their role in policymaking. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/
Zaki, J. (2024). Hope for cynics: The surprising science of human goodness. Little, Brown Spark.
Recent Articles by Our First Court Team:
Comments