Blog

By Dr. Kelly Anthony, PhD
President & Director of Research | Litigation Research Group

One of the most important questions every litigator should ask:

When do you want to learn that jurors don’t believe your case—before trial, or after a multi-million-dollar loss?

A client recently reached out to our team—after losing a $50 million case twice.

After the first trial, the court corrected the jury instructions for the retrial. But that change wasn’t enough. The second jury—just like the first—rejected the defense’s arguments in full, siding with the plaintiff on every issue.

At that point, Litigation Research Group was brought in to conduct post-trial juror interviews. The insights were sobering: jurors didn’t trust the defense narrative, didn’t connect with the key witnesses, and didn’t find the overarching case themes persuasive.

Could a different strategy have changed the outcome? Possibly.
Could earlier jury research have flagged those problems in time to do something about them? Absolutely.

If we had been consulted before the first trial—or even ahead of the retrial—we could have helped shape the case using empirical data and juror feedback, refining arguments, testing themes, assessing witness performance, and anticipating juror responses. Even in complex or high-exposure matters, early insight often leads to more persuasive strategy and better outcomes—or at the very least, more manageable damages.

Instead, clarity came after two costly verdicts. And by then, the opportunity to shift the narrative was gone.

Takeaway

Early-stage jury research isn’t a luxury—it’s a strategic necessity.

When the stakes are high, data-driven insight can mean the difference between persuasive and punitive. Real jurors offer real feedback. And the best trial teams leverage it long before opening statements begin.

Jurors will always do what they believe is right.
It’s your job to make sure that belief benefits your client.