"When anger rises, think of the consequences." – Confucius
Civil litigation often involves more than just legal arguments and evidence. It also involves strong emotions, particularly anger. Plaintiffs who believe they have been wronged frequently direct their anger toward the defendant. This emotional charge can influence jurors, leading them to impose excessive damages or find liability based on sentiment rather than legal reasoning. For civil defense attorneys, recognizing and defusing this anger is essential to ensuring a fair trial.
Research has shown that anger plays a significant role in jury decision-making. A study published in the Wyoming Law Review found that when jurors feel anger toward a party, they tend to focus on punishing that party rather than evaluating the case objectively. This study examined how emotions such as sadness, fear, and anger affect decision-making and concluded that anger leads to more punitive responses (Estrada-Reynolds, Schweitzer, and Nuñez, 2016). In civil cases, this can mean larger damage awards and a heightened willingness to assign blame to the defendant, even when the facts may not support such a decision.
The way attorneys express themselves in court can also shape jurors' emotional reactions. A study on attorney anger and juror decision-making found that when attorneys display authentic anger, it can intensify jurors' emotions, increasing their likelihood of rendering punitive verdicts. However, when jurors perceive an attorney’s anger as manipulative or inauthentic, it can backfire and damage credibility. The study demonstrated that emotional expressions from attorneys do not simply sway jurors but can also provoke resistance when viewed as insincere (Choi, Nuñez, and Wilkowski, 2022). This highlights the importance of maintaining a composed and measured tone in court.
One of the most effective strategies for defusing anger is acknowledging the plaintiff’s perspective without conceding liability. When defense attorneys recognize the difficulty the plaintiff has faced, it can help jurors feel that their concerns are being taken seriously. This approach does not require an admission of fault but rather a demonstration of empathy and understanding. If a defense attorney appears dismissive or indifferent, it can reinforce the plaintiff’s narrative that the defendant is irresponsible or unaccountable, strengthening jurors' emotional connection to the plaintiff’s case.
Corporate defendants are particularly vulnerable to anger-driven verdicts. Many jurors enter the courtroom with preexisting distrust toward large companies, perceiving them as impersonal entities that prioritize profits over people. Plaintiffs' attorneys often use this perception to their advantage, framing their cases in ways that evoke jurors' frustration with corporate power. In these situations, humanizing the defendant is essential. When jurors see corporate representatives as real people making difficult decisions rather than as distant executives, they are less likely to react with hostility. Presenting company employees who were directly involved in decision-making or discussing company policies designed to prevent harm can help shift jurors’ perspectives.
Redirecting jurors’ focus from emotion to factual and legal principles is another essential strategy. Plaintiffs' attorneys frequently craft narratives that emphasize harm and injustice, aiming to generate an emotional response. The defense must counter this by methodically presenting evidence and emphasizing the applicable legal standards. Clear and logical arguments that steer the discussion away from emotions and toward reason can help jurors engage in a more objective analysis of the case.
Settlement negotiations also present an opportunity for defusing anger. Research has shown that when litigants are emotionally charged, they are less likely to accept reasonable settlement offers. Plaintiffs who feel deeply wronged may reject offers that are objectively in their best interest simply because they are driven by a desire for retribution rather than resolution. A defense attorney who recognizes this dynamic can adopt negotiation strategies that address these emotional concerns, increasing the likelihood of a fair settlement (Choi, Nuñez, and Wilkowski. 2022).
Defusing anger in the courtroom is not about undermining the plaintiff’s experience but about ensuring that jurors make decisions based on facts rather than emotions. The best civil defense attorneys understand that anger is a powerful force in litigation and take proactive steps to manage it. By acknowledging emotions, humanizing the defendant, shifting the focus to legal reasoning, and addressing emotional barriers in negotiations, defense attorneys can create an environment where justice is based on law rather than sentiment.
As Confucius reminds us, when anger rises, it is essential to think of the consequences. In civil litigation, failing to control the emotional tone of a case can lead to verdicts driven by retribution rather than fairness. The most effective defense attorneys recognize that managing emotions is just as important as presenting legal arguments.
If you are interested in working with a Jury Selection Consultant, contact us Here.
References:
Recent Articles by Our First Court Team: