Dr. Noelle Nelson - A Note from Dr. Noelle

Winning Tip #203



	Dr. Noelle Nelson's Home Page
	Trial Consulting

Jurors frequently form opinions about an attorney based on their opinion of the attorney's client. For example, the unfortunate image many individuals have of criminal defense lawyers stems from our tendency to link these lawyers with the unsavory acts of their clients. Of course, this view only holds true until an individual needs a defense lawyer, at which time, the defense lawyer suddenly becomes a heroic savior. The same can be said of plaintiffs’. attorneys. They are often seen as money-hungry by most members of the public until an individual has what he or she deems to be a righteous cause. Suddenly the plaintiffs' attorney becomes a crusading ally.

This close link between client and lawyer can be used in reverse, and to the advantage of legal counsel. The more actively you demonstrate your high moral and ethical standards, the more the jurors will be inclined to perceive your client--or your client's cause--as worthy. Body language can be particularly helpful in establishing those non-verbal cues which we associate with morally upright individuals. For example, maintain good posture. When you stand straight and tall, you are symbolically "standing up" for what you believe. Avoid leaning forward with rounded back onto the table or slumping down into your chair. Keep your head straight and level, symbolically showing that you have "a good head on your shoulders." Avoid dropping your head down to your chest, or tilted on either side. Establish good eye contact. The eyes are called the "windows to the soul," and the ability to look clearly and directly at people is considered the mark of an honest person.

WINNING WORDS :

"Success is simply a matter of luck. Ask any failure."

Earl Nightingale

A WINNING CASE Dr. Noelle Nelson recently consulted on:

Congratulations to Matthew B.F. Biren of Biren & Katzman for his $3.7 million Verdict in Pomona, on an automobile accident case in which defendant swerved, allegedly in response to being cut off by a phantom vehicle, into the car plaintiff was a passenger in, causing it to go out of control and roll and plaintiff to be ejected, resulting in a brain injury – despite defense claims that plaintiff was a malingerer, based on failed neuropsych symptom validity tests and sub rosa film.