Litigation Consulting
An insight into the jury’s decision-making is obviously helpful for a fair trial. Litigation consulting, which is the use of a forensic psychologist in choosing a jury, aims to gain a competitive advantage over the opponent. This end is achieved partly by more accurately assessing the risks of litigation. Forensic psychologist has different roles to the attorney depending on the side he or she is. The plaintiff’s attorney, advises them on how much their case is worth to decide whether to take or drop the case. The attorney can also estimate how much is realistic to spend in terms of time and money in its prosecution. On the other hand, defending attorneys may need a psychologist to establish the risk of litigation and the utility of settlement (Finkelman, 2010).
Voir dire refers to an oath a person considered for a jury role takes to speak the truth during an examination that ascertains competence as a witness or juror. It is usually done by a judge or attorney to establish the suitability of a person to hold that post (Garner, 2006). It involves anticipating the psychological and sociological inclination of potential jurors to favor a particular side during a trial. A psychological knowledge of such candidates will be necessary to determine their suitability, a role that forensic psychologists can best deliver. Examples of some most recent cases that exemplify the use of forensic psychologists in voir dire are the Pearson v. State case in 2014. Another case is Langley v. State in 1977. Another case is Hernandez v. State (Bonsib & Coleman n.d.).
References
Bonsib, R. C., & Coleman, M. E. (n.d.). Voir Dire - Recent Cases and Some Thoughts.
Finkelman, J. M. (2010). Litigation consulting: expanding beyond jury selection to trial strategy and tactics. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62 (1), 12-20.
