Family hopes $150B civil award prompts charges

By MICHAEL GRACZYK

This undated family photo shows Robbie Middleton, who was allegedly doused with gasoline and set on fire on his eighth birthday on June 28, 1998. An attorney who persuaded a Texas jury to award one of the largest civil verdicts ever says he and his clients don’t expect to collect any of the $150 billion judgment, but they hope it helps persuade prosecutors to seek charges against the man they say is responsible for the attack. Middleton survived his horrific injuries for 12 years before dying last year of a rare form of skin cancer, which attorneys argued was related to the extensive burns he suffered. (AP Photo/Courtesy of the Middleton Family)
….HOUSTON (AP) — An attorney who persuaded a Texas jury to award one of the largest civil verdicts ever says he and his clients don’t expect to collect any of the $150 billion judgment, but they hope it helps persuade prosecutors to seek charges against a man they say doused a boy with gasoline and set him on fire.

Robbie Middleton survived his horrific injuries for 12 years before dying last year of a rare form of skin cancer, which attorneys argued was related to the extensive burns he suffered on his eighth birthday. Lawyer Craig Sico and Middleton’s family said they now hope for a renewed investigation of Don Wilburn Collins, who Middleton accused of setting him on fire.

Collins never faced criminal charges in Middleton’s case, in part, prosecutors said, because of inconsistencies in the evidence and difficulty obtaining information from such a young victim. Now 26, Collins is in prison for an unrelated sexual assault conviction against another 8-year-old boy and for failing to register as a sex offender. He is to be released next year.

He did not appear in court during the civil trial and no attorney appeared on his behalf.

Sico said he asked jurors to make a statement in the case by topping the biggest civil verdict he was aware of — a $145 billion judgment handed down against the tobacco companies in Florida in 2000.

“We said, ‘If you want your message to be heard, it needs to be significant and that’s how people hear about these things. And we leave it to you.’ We made no request,” Sico said.

The Fayette County jury returned the $150 billion verdict Tuesday after a two-day trial.

The Florida tobacco verdict of $145 billion, which was later overturned, had stood as the largest U.S. civil jury verdict, said John T. Nockleby, professor and director of the civil justice program at the Loyola Marymount University School of Law in Los Angeles.

“It’s the kind of award that has no meaning outside of an expression of moral outrage,” he said. “They could have awarded a trillion dollars, and it would have made no difference.”

Middleton’s mother, Colleen Middleton, said Wednesday the family hadn’t really thought about the size of the judgment.

“We’re never going to see any money,” she said. “What we thought was please let these people realize Robert was precious, like everybody else’s child, and he didn’t deserve this.”

“When they came back with the $150 billion, I was like: ‘They get it.’ And that made me feel so good,” she said.

Montgomery County Attorney David Walker said Wednesday that the sheriff’s department’s cold case unit already has been reviewing the Middleton burning case for several months.

“I will tell you the case is an extremely difficult case given the evidence that was discovered years ago and the nature of that evidence,” Walker said. “Young Robbie was so traumatized and so damaged that information from him was very, very difficult to obtain.”

Walker said there also were some inconsistencies in the evidence, not necessarily from Robbie Middleton, that presented a challenge to prosecutors. He declined to elaborate.

“But I can tell you if it can be properly and successfully be prosecuted certainly it would have been back then and it would be now,” Walker said.

Robbie Middleton was attacked on June 28, 1998 — his eighth birthday — as he walked through a wooded area in the Southeast Texas town of Splendora, 35 northeast of Houston. A neighbor who discovered the boy told a 911 dispatcher that the burned child said, “Some kids threw the gas on him.”

When police questioned the boy, who was burned over 99 percent of his body, he told them: “Don did it.”

Collins, who was 13 at the time, was taken into custody five days later. He was held in juvenile detention for six weeks before he was released without charges to the custody of an uncle appointed as his legal guardian.

In a video deposition taken just before he died last year, Middleton identified Collins as a person who sexually assaulted him about two weeks before the fire attack.

Middleton’s parents eventually moved about 100 miles east to Fayette County, where they filed their lawsuit against Collins.

Words vs. deeds
Last Updated: 10:41 PM, December 18, 2011

Posted: December 19, 2011

Jurors deadlocked recently on charges that City Councilman Larry Seabrook steered taxpayer funds to his mistress and relatives, but Albany last week did them one better — by conspiring actually to reward Brooklyn power-broker Vito Lopez for doing nearly the same thing.

True, Gov. Cuomo and the legislative leaders last Monday proclaimed a new era in clean government — in the form of the state’s (umpteenth) ethics panel.

You can read Cuomo’s lips: “The Joint Commission on Public Ethics . . . will aggressively investigate corruption and help maintain integrity in state government,” Cuomo vowed, as he announced the new panel members’ names.

Larry Seabrook
“I am confident that . . . the commission will be the toughest ethics enforcer in our state’s history,” he insisted.

Give them credit for the effort, we guess.

But how can anyone take the rhetoric seriously — when the state this month also showered nearly $850,000 in state funds on Lopez’s dubious social-service empire?

Lopez, remember, is the Democratic assemblyman and Brooklyn political boss whose Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Center has drawn investigators like flies to a dead fish.

The Post has reported extensively on the center — which has gotten millions from taxpayers, thanks to Lopez.

In November, a city probe accused Ridgwood of multiple financial irregularities, including sudden spikes in pay in 2009 for Lopez’s girlfriend, Angela Battaglia, and his campaign treasurer, Christiana Fisher, both of whom are top center officials.

Battaglia’s salary shot up from $198,000 to $343,000; Fisher’s more than doubled, from $336,000 to $782,000.

Records to justify the cash-bath, the probe found, were created long after the fact. (No surprise that state and federal authorities are likewise probing the group.)

And while Lopez insists he has no official role at Ridgewood, he founded it, oversaw it for years and maintains ties.

Clearly, any money Ridgewood gets is money Lopez controls, at least indirectly.

Meanwhile, some of the folks named to the new ethics panel have themselves stirred skepticism — such as, notably, Ravi Batra, a lawyer whose firm once had ex-Assemblyman Clarence Norman on its payroll. Norman, recall, was himself found guilty of corruption charges in 2005.

“It’s an eyebrow-raiser when one of the appointees is connected to a former jailed elected official,” said Dick Dadey of Citizens Union, a government watchdog.

A new era in ethics? Perhaps.

Trial Consulting: The Game Isn’t Over Until You Win!
by Marshall L Hennington, Ph.D.

In the past, many attorneys have regarded trial consultants as a luxury service. The popularity of trial consultants did not really begin until the early 1970s when defendants such as anti-war activist Phillip Berrigan feared they would be denied a sympathetic jury and turned to social scientists for help. Soon corporations hired consultants in high-stakes cases, including MCI Communications Corporation’s anti-trust suit against AT&T.
In today’s litigious environment, it is becoming increasingly important to make certain a case presentation is as effective as it can be. Information is power, and the stakes for a trial may increase or decrease depending on how thoroughly prepared the litigation team is to trade punches with the other side. How does hiring a trial consultant help? In the words of one litigator, “You do it because you are afraid not to.”
Over the past two decades, trial consulting has evolved into common usage. Attorneys are reluctant to enter a trial without one. It was only after the O.J. Simpson trial that not only the legal community but also the entire American public began to realize that attorneys couldn’t simply rely on instinct to select advantageous jurors.
At one time, it was the norm to go with a “hunch’” in selecting jurors. Now the standard involves the use of scientific research by trial consultants utilizing mass marketing, polling, focus groups, demographic indicators, voir dire questionnaires, and juror profiles to carefully screen potential jurors prior to the actual selection process. Consultants often help attorneys gain valuable insights into what juries will find convincing, as well as how clients will be perceived, which often affects a decision of whether to settle or try a case. One attorney who had once considered trial consulting as ”witchcraft” now calls it “essential.”

Not All Agree
However, some legal scholars and litigators have condemned trial consultants for “rigging the game.” They argue that juries are supposed to be representative of the community, not handpicked for pliability. Courts occasionally remind lawyers that their mission in jury selection is to find people who can be fair and impartial. This emphasis often makes some lawyers laugh because in their view the whole trial process is one of manipulation, with attorneys attempting to defeat each-other.
Los Angeles civil rights attorney Leo Terrell commented to the Washington Post on September 26, 1994, that “If we are to assume that a case is decided solely on the evidence presented, then we are living in a theoretical world. It’s the way you dress. It’s what you look like. It’s your racial composition. It’s how you present the evidence. People get caught up in all the wrong factors. You have to acknowledge that these factors exist.”
Even though a potentially favorable jury panel has been selected, the ability to mold jurors is limited. Trial consultants tend to be most effective in advising lawyers how to influence jurors after they have been selected. Researchers have found that evidence presentation and the opening and closing statements usually are more important than jury compositions; thus, it is also incumbent upon the trial consultant to advise lawyers how to make the most of these. Jury selection is only five percent of the equation.
Finely packaging a case presentation, preparing demonstrative exhibits for trial, informing attorneys about which evidence to stress to effectively sway jurors, even advising attorneys about how large an award to ask for in a civil case have been utilized by trial consultants. Like football, jury verdicts can be a “game of inches.” Having an arsenal of information at one’s fingertips is the best defense against the unexpected suddenly occurring and watching your trial presentation unravel. In essence, the best defense to an adverse situation in a trial is a good offense using a consultant.
This writer recently represented a Fortune 500 company that was a defendant in a product liability lawsuit. During jury selection it became clear that the plaintiff attorney’s strategy during jury selection was to include as many minority jurors as possible on the panel. He apparently assumed that minorities would be unfavorable to the defense in a corporate civil case. During voir dire the plaintiffs’ attorney asked few questions of the jurors and appeared to pick jurors on the basis of first impression, perhaps falsely assuming that by having an all-minority jury panel, and by utilizing case themes with buzz words such as “oppression” and “distrust,” that the jurors would relate to his message and render a favorable verdict for the plaintiff.
What the plaintiff attorney failed to find out was that most of the minority panel members generally had a favorable impression of corporations, as many of the jurors had retired on savings they had invested in corporations. Also, some jurors had experiences working on assembly lines and they understood that it was not uncommon for product malfunctions to occur.
The plaintiffs’ themes were often offensive, outdated, and seemed to alienate jurors. In the end. a verdict favorable to the defendant was reached. The plaintiffs’ attorney may have allowed his first impressions of the jurors to skew his questioning of all the jurors. Allowing stereotypes about minorities can hide valuable and helpful information.

Are Witnesses Manipulated?
Some may argue that trial consultants often strategize with attorneys on how to manipulate witnesses’ testimony, which often leaves the opposing counsel frustrated and confused at pivotal junctures of a trial. However, such tactics are not unethical, and the use of them really depends on the type of action an attorney chooses to use. One of the first things to determine about any case is whether the retaining attorney expects the opposing counsel to litigate the case in a “civilized manner,” or if the battle will be fought outside the parameters of civility.
The field of trial consulting has advanced substantially to the point where a variety of statistical and demographic services are provided to improve clients’ chances of winning a jury trial, or helping clients settle on more favorable terms. Trial consultants are often hired to identify personality types of jurors and to assemble shadow juries during the trial, which give attorneys insight as to how the actual jury is considering different points in the trial. Consultants also assist with development of case themes and aid in tying in demonstrative evidence presented to the jurors.

Computerized Graphics Also Help
In addition, savvy lawyers can bolster their presentations with demonstrative evidence jurors find appealing, with the assistance of trial consultants. New advancements such as computer animation programs can recreate events or processes in dispute. These tools help to sway jurors during the trial and deliberations. Further, graphic presentations aid litigators in telling compelling stories to jurors. These techniques can make the most highly complex cases easier for all jurors to comprehend what, how, and why an incident occurred along with who should or should not be liable. Moreover, because most cases settle before ever going to court, there is also a high demand for competent consultants to utilize their expertise as strategists to help attorneys negotiate favorable settlements.
As the next millennium approaches, litigators will continue to become aware of the value of trial consultants. Since opposing counsel often does not reveal if they are working with a consultant, it makes good business sense to not leave any stone unturned while preparing a game plan or trial. Remember, “the game ain’t over until you win!”

Here’s an article I found interesting- – Marshall Hennington, Ph.D. www.diversity-enterprises.com or www.juryconsulting.com. What do you think?

Judge considers Fort Hood shooting suspect’s request for jury consultant, publicity expert

By Associated Press, Published: October 27, The Washington Post

FORT HOOD, Texas — Because he’s a Muslim and accused of having ties to a terrorist, the man charged in the deadly Fort Hood shooting rampage needs a jury consultant before he goes on trial for his life, his defense attorneys told a military judge Thursday.

Maj. Nidal Hasan’s attorneys also told the judge that he needs another expert to analyze the extensive pretrial publicity about the case and determine how that might influence potential jurors.

The judge, Col. Gregory Gross, said he would rule later on the defense motions requesting the two experts that would require government funding. Gross would decide the amount if he approves one or both motions, according to Fort Hood officials.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the November 2009 shootings at the Texas Army post. His trial is set for March, and jurors are to be brought from Fort Sill, Okla.

Lt. Col. Kris Poppe, the lead defense attorney, said jurors must consider life in prison and not just the death penalty if Hasan is convicted. Poppe said the defense team needs a jury consultant to help ensure that jurors are fair because Hasan, 41, already faces numerous obstacles — including stereotypes about his religion and the number of victims in the case.

Prosecutors urged the judge to deny the requests, saying they were unnecessary expenses. Maj. Larry Downend, one of the prosecutors, said a jury consultant would be doing “tasks performed routinely by attorneys around the world every day.”

Poppe also said he would decide later whether to challenge Gross as the judge in the case. Gross answered some of Poppe’s follow-up questions in court Thursday after filling out a questionnaire prepared by the defense team.

Gross said he was presiding over a trial in a Fort Hood courtroom on Nov. 5, 2009, when someone handed him a note instructing him to take a recess immediately. He said he then called his wife, who was shopping on the post with some other relatives, but that they were fine. Gross said he didn’t remember if he attended the memorial service a few days later in which President Barack Obama addressed the victims’ families and a large crowd at Fort Hood.

“The events of 5 November have had no noticeable impact (on me),” Gross said.

At an evidentiary hearing a year ago, witnesses said that a gunman wearing an Army combat uniform shouted “Allahu Akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great!” — and opened fire in a small but crowded medical building where deploying soldiers are vaccinated and undergo other tests. The gunman fired rapidly, pausing only to reload, even shooting some people as they hid under tables or fled the building, witnesses said.

Some witnesses identified the gunman as Hasan, an American-born Muslim who was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan the following month. Hasan was paralyzed from the waist down after being shot the day of the rampage and remains jailed.

A Senate report released earlier this year said the FBI missed warning signs and that before the rampage, Hasan had become an Islamic extremist and a “ticking time bomb.”

U.S. officials have said they believe Hasan’s attack was inspired by the radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and that they exchanged as many as 20 emails. Al-Awlaki was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. His name has not yet been mentioned in any hearings in Hasan’s case.

Here’s an article I found interesting- – Marshall Hennington, Ph.D. www.diversity-enterprises.com or www.juryconsulting.com. What do you think?

Did jurors’ hunger or grumpiness influence guilty verdict?

Attorney for a man convicted of murder is asking a judge to interview jurors who reportedly were denied food, medication during deliberations

By Anthony Colarossi

The three-day murder trial of Devonte Walker in late March received scant attention, taking place during the long lead-up to the Casey Anthony trial.

An Orange County jury of 12 found Walker guilty of first-degree murder and attempted robbery with a firearm. In early July, Judge C. Jeffery Arnold sentenced Walker, who turns 21 later this month, to life in prison.

But in a highly unusual legal move that brings to mind the classic courtroom drama “12 Angry Men,” Walker’s defense attorney has asked the court to individually interview the jurors who found Walker guilty to determine their demeanor during deliberations and whether the defendant received a fair trial.

Walker’s attorney, Assistant Public Defender Jamie David Parker Kane, included in his pleadings an affidavit from a court deputy who escorted one juror — who said she was diabetic and was unsteady on her feet — from the Orange County Courthouse when deliberations ended sometime after 10 p.m. March 30.
“The juror complained that she, along with other members of the jury, were angry that they had not been fed,” the deputy, Paul Paquette, said in his sworn statement. “And that this had caused the panel to be ‘tired and grumpy.’ ”

The question now is whether the jurors took their grumpiness out on the defendant.

Kane said that interviewing the Walker jurors individually “is the only way to determine what if any effect the conditions of deliberations had upon the jury, regarding either medical needs or their abilities to remain focused on the evidence and instructions.”

Kane could not be reached for comment. But three jurors interviewed for this article, including one with diabetes, said this week that the Walker verdicts were based on the facts of the case and that the lengthy deliberations were not a factor.

The defense argument is critical to Walker, a young man looking at spending his life in prison for the east Orange County shooting death of Rene Gonzalez-Doria in early September 2009.

Arnold denied an initial request to interview the jurors before sentencing Walker but then granted a “motion for reconsideration,” saying he would question the jurors in open court and ask the defense to propose questions, according to a prosecution memo filed last week.

“Judge Arnold acknowledged that he believed the juror interviews were a ‘waste of time’ but he felt that conducting the interviews might eliminate a possible appellate issue,” Assistant State Attorney James Altman wrote in a 10-page memo.

Arnold’s “waste of time” comment and others led the defense to ask that the judge recuse himself from the proceedings. He did just that early last month, stating he “could become a witness in [the] case.”

The case was reassigned to Circuit Judge Marc Lubet, who may soon have the unenviable task of trying to discern from the jurors whether anything outside the evidence influenced their decision.

‘We had sandwiches’

Concerns about the jurors in the Walker trial were reported to Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry.

“The issue that was brought to my attention was that they were not fed,” Perry said. “If a juror is going to be in this courthouse after six o’clock, we feed them, if they want to be fed.”

Other concerns were expressed about medical issues and lack of contact with family, Perry said. He had a conversation with Arnold after learning of the episode, Perry said, and reminded him of the policy of feeding jurors, being aware of their medical needs and providing access to loved ones during late deliberations.

Perry cited an “excellent record” of caring for jurors in this circuit, except for this “little blip.”

“Sometimes, mistakes are made,” Perry said.

Asked whether any mistake made in handling the Walker jury could have affected the verdict, Perry said he could not comment because a higher court may ultimately have to rule on the matter.

Arnold could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

However, one of Walker’s jurors, Ramona Gerbig, recalled the trial as a “positive” experience overall, despite the seriousness of the charges and the stressful deliberations. And she recalled the jury was fed the night of the late deliberations.

“The night that we stayed late, we had sandwiches, if I remember correctly,” Gerbig said.

 
She acknowledged the jurors were tired and grumpy, but that was not necessarily because they were hungry, she said. It probably had more to do with the long hours they had put in trying to reach a verdict, Gerbig explained.

“There was nothing to my knowledge that occurred in the jury room that would have changed the outcome of that trial,” she said. “I felt that every one of us did our job.”

Christine Scarlett, another Walker juror, said she is diabetic and needed to go home and get her medication that night. But she also recalled being fed and agreed the late deliberations did not influence the jury’s decision-making.

Attempts to reach most other jurors were not successful.

Not surprisingly, Altman’s memorandum opposes the juror interviews and cites a series of cases to support that position.

“The law is crystal clear that any interview of jurors that relates to the jurors’ deliberations, or that seeks to inquire as to the jurors’ mental processes … their motivations, emotions, internal influences or the like is strictly prohibited,” Altman wrote.

Altman said a tired and grumpy panel would not be a surprise “considering that the jurors had spent all day in court and were not excused until after 10 p.m.”

It is not unusual for Orange Circuit judges to allow deliberations, once they’ve begun, to go into the evening hours. During the recent James Robert “Bob” Ward murder trial, Judge Jenifer Davis was planning to let the jury continue deliberations until about 10 p.m. before the jurors themselves asked for a recess soon before that planned deadline.

Gerbig said jurors in the Walker case controlled how late they went.

“Honestly, it was in our hands,” she said. “We could have called it quits earlier.”

The Walker jurors were released after 10 p.m. March 30, following hours of deliberations. They returned early March 31, and, after more deliberations, reached their verdicts.

At no time on either day of the deliberations did the jurors indicate an “inability to perform the duties as jurors, and at no time did the court fail to accommodate any request made by the jury,” Altman argued.

Here’s an article I found interesting- – Marshall Hennington, Ph.D. www.diversity-enterprises.com or www.juryconsulting.com. What do you think?

Casey Anthony case casts harsh light on jurors’ lack of privacy

By: Rene Lynch

A judge’s decision to publicly release the names of the jurors in the Casey Anthony case — creating at least the potential for an outraged public to vent their displeasure — could have repercussions nationwide, a law professor said Tuesday.

Prospective jurors could balk at serving either in high-profile cases or in cases involving the criminal underworld, such as a case related to the mob or violent gangs, said Thaddeus Hoffmeister, an associate professor at University of Dayton’s School of Law. And judges could find themselves faced with additional requests to seat an anonymous jury (a rarity in the legal system) to help allay fears of reprisals.

“You can see a situation where there will be some pushback because of this,” Hoffmeister, who specializes in jury issues, told The Times. “You can see where a juror would say, ‘I don’t want anything to do with this, I saw what happened [in the Casey Anthony case]. I don’t want that invasion of privacy.’”

That’s not to say jurors in high-profile cases should be afraid.

Hoffmeister notes that reprisals against jurors is largely the stuff of Hollywood screenplays and prime-time procedurals. ”It just doesn’t happen,” Hoffmeister said. “Rarely, if ever, are jurors actually harmed. When people talk about someone going after jurors, I always say, ‘Give me one example.’”

In the Anthony case, Superior Court Judge Belvin Perry delayed the release of the jurors’ names for several months after Anthony’s acquittal in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. Public interest in the case, and displeasure over the verdict, were so high that the judge had said he wanted a “cooling-off” period before making the jurors’ names public.

The cooling off period ended Tuesday, and reporters immediately began knocking on jurors’ doors. The Orlando Sentinel even provided brief descriptions of the jurors along with their names.

Perhaps it was to be expected. Intense media scrutiny of high-profile cases and an insatiable 24-hour news cycle have thrust jurors into the public eye like never before. And now, tracking a juror to his or her front door now can be as easy as reaching for a smart phone.

“It’s one of those double-edged swords of the digital age,” Hoffmeister said. “You can cover [a trial] on TV, print, online, social media, and it all creates more interest and a demand for more information. At what point is it too much information?”

He added: “It used to be that if you wanted to track people down, you had to hire a private investigator. Now you Google them.”

Although jurors may not like it, making their identities known is a cornerstone of the legal system, Hoffmeister said. The U.S. Constitution guarantees a defendant a right to trial by a fair and impartial jury. And one way to achieve that is to make sure that the jurors are known, so that any potential conflicts of interest or inherent biases will be ferreted out by either the prosecution, the defense or, in some cases, the media.

Juror privacy guidelines can vary from state to state and judge to judge. California’s state court website notes that after a trial is over, the media or interested parties may reach out to jurors, and urges jurors to call the judge if they feel harassed.

Hoffmeister said that he personally does not feel the need for anonymous juries except in extreme cases, such as in some terrorism or organized-crime trials. Given the unlikelihood of any harm coming to a juror, he said, it’s more important to keep court proceedings transparent.

Still, Hoffmeister said, “I think you will see courts go more and more toward the position that the names are not released.”

Read what I have to say about managing your personal brand while remaining authentic – Marshall Hennington, Ph.D. www.diversity-enterprises.com or www.juryconsulting.com

Managing your personal brand: First impressions still count

By Brett Graff

 For those in the workplace or looking to land a job, what others think does matter. The key: Thoughtfully managing your personal brand while remaining authentic.

By: Brett Graff

As Miami-Dade Community College student Patrick Chalvire prepares his cover letter for an internship he’s hoping to land, something crosses his mind: he’d better wear a long-sleeve shirt to the interview. That’s because Chalvire learned shortly after getting his two tattoos that people are quick to stereotype candidates displaying permanent body art. And despite his arm being designed to honor his beloved mother, the ink forges on others an unpleasant impression, he says.

“Just having a tattoo, people think that person is a hoodlum or a slacker,” he says. “But I have goals. First to finish school and then to work in television or radio.”

Tattoos along with most other human qualities — from the ones we chose to the ones we inherit — can factor into the professional images we hold, says researcher and professor at Antioch University, Dr. Laura Morgan Roberts. And that those personas correlate strongly with our salaries. She says traits such as age, gender or even whether we’re working mothers can either help or hurt us in business. But the way things go depends entirely on us — what we choose to flaunt or downplay in the delicate process of crafting of our professional characters.

Critics of Morgan’s research say that defining ourselves by anything other than our skills and knowledge will most surely backfire. But all experts agree that taking control of how bosses, clients and colleagues view us is better than letting casual circumstances shape our reputations.

“People form judgments of competence, character and commitment within seconds of encountering you,” says Roberts, who plowed through piles of published research and conducted her own interviews on stereotypes. “And those impressions can have a tremendous impact on whether you’re considered for a promotion or whether you’re viewed as a leader. There are very real financial consequences associated with these assessments.”

We’ve all been told since our first job search that combing our hair and tucking in our shirts will be a critical representation of our performance. But Roberts says it goes further. She says that while we as individuals believe we defy any stereotypes applied to our groups — just as Chalvire explains how he’s ambitious regardless of having a tattoo — we’re fully aware of the typecasts that could be swirling around about us. And we should first consider our own unique goals before consciously confronting or concealing certain aspects of ourselves for the sake of career management.

“Deciding that you aren’t going to pay attention to what other people say about you on the surface seems like a healthy tactic,” Roberts says. “But if you go too far with that you will suffer consequences for your career.”

Working mothers, Roberts says, are often inappropriately viewed as less committed to their careers. So while it’s perfectly fine to drop by your child’s school during lunch, you’ll want to spend any moments you have with management highlighting your professional accomplishments — not your time out of the office.

Meanwhile, a young executive may want to address age head on, for example, announcing he’ll be conducting the seminar, rather than waiting for a participant to confuse him for a student. And older workers — who are too often typecast as being out of touch with technology — should embrace younger colleagues, rather than running themselves ragged trying to establish their seniority.

Women are often seen as caring, so if someone’s intimidated, they might consider asking a concerned question.

“It’s about managing people’s impressions,” Roberts says. “And educating people on the positive aspects of your identity group.”

But don’t be surprised if that strategy backfires, costing you more money than it earns, says Dr. Marshall Hennington, owner of North Miami cultural sensitivity training company Diversity Enterprises. He says the idea of people entering into the workplace holding stereotypes is in itself a stereotype. And our obligation as employees, he says, is to eliminate them all.

“Stereotypes are based on fear, misinformation and ignorance,” Hennington says. “You don’t need to perpetuate a stereotype to gain people’s respect or an advantage in anything. You have an obligation to be yourself and highlight your unique qualities.”

Those, says Michelle Villalobos of Mivista Consulting, are going to be your strongest assets for personal brand management. After defining who you are, determine your audience — if you work in a company it will be your colleagues and executives — and deploy your strategy accordingly. Volunteer for high profile tasks, strategically mention your accomplishments and seek out a mentor.

“Stereotypes are almost irrelevant,” she says. “If you take control of your brand you can weather any storm, whether it’s a recession or a new job.”

And those old adages about combed hair and ironed clothes? They’re around for a good reason, says Susan Bigsby, a certified personal image consultant whose client list includes Florida Power and Light, Northern Trust and Mount Sinai Medical Center. But remember also to wear a smile and relay confidence. Stand up straight and thoroughly know your product or service.

“Many professionals have never paid attention to themselves,” she says. “They haven’t packaged their own product properly. We have to market ourselves in a visual way just as much as a jar of spaghetti sauce.”

Do you know when you will be forced to defend your next employee lawsuit?

DON’T WAIT TO FIND OUT!

Diversity Enterprises is proud to announce 5 new online certified training courses:

• Workplace sexual harassment              
• Workplace discrimination                         
• Workplace cultural sensitivity                 
• Workplace conflict management                  
• Workplace cyber bullying

 Just one hour of training can save your firm from devastating lawsuits.

Please visit our website www.diversity-enterprises.com to view demonstrations of our on-line courses and to learn more about the other services we provide.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Marshall Hennington, Ph.D

President

Diversity Enterprises

Here’s an article I found interesting – Marshall Hennington, Ph.D. www.diversity-enterprises.com or www.juryconsulting.com

Judging by Appearance

Judges and juries can be swayed by more than just a pretty face: clothing and jewelry choices can sometimes mean the difference between doing time and dodging jail.

By Annie Murphy Paul

Blindfolded, balancing her scales, Justice issues her subjects a solemn promise: No peeking. Her real life representatives, however, are not always quite so scrupulous. Psychologists have persuasively demonstrated that attractive defendants are perceived as more credible, are acquitted more often, and receive lighter sentences than their less appealing counterparts. But judges and juries can be swayed by more than just a pretty face: the clothing defendants wear, the jewelry they display, the way they style their hair, can sometimes mean the difference between doing time and dodging jail.

The influence of appearance in the courtroom is so great, in fact, that an entire industry has emerged to advise lawyers, plaintiffs, and defendants on their aesthetic choices. Jury consultants, often trained in both psychology and law, counsel their clients on how to speak, when to gesture—and not least, what to wear. “The jury is going to form impressions of you based on subtle characteristics of personality and attitude, and dress is one important element,” says Robert Gordon, a Dallas-based psychologist and jury consultant. “Whether you dress casually or formally, wear a tie or a dress, choose bright or dark colors, all make a difference in terms of how you are perceived.” Although consultants are called in only on high-profile, high-stakes cases, their strategies also apply to more mundane matters—the shoplifting charge, the bankruptcy claim, the speeding ticket.

Bottom of Form

Wear to court what you would wear to church, went the old advice, but in a more secular age the word is: wear what you would wear to a business meeting. The tailored suit, the crisp shirt or soft blouse, the subdued tie for men and low heels for women, have become the courtroom version of dress-for-success. There’s a good reason for that: executive attire is like a round Rorschach blot, replete with associations that are at best positive and at worst blandly neutral. The brisk air of a business suit suggests that the defendant is neither a rich layabout nor a welfare cheat, but someone who works for a living. The corporate uniform is a token of belonging, to a company and to a middle-class community. And even if the defendant has just emerged from a maximum-security prison, wearing a suit he looks as if he could stride right out of the courthouse and join the innocent throng on the sidewalk.

The suit also acts as a disguise, a cover for complicated individuality. “You want the defendant to look as much like everybody else as possible,” says Gordon. “You don’t want the clothes to make a statement.” Although consultants often try to “humanize” their clients, making them appear more appealing and accessible, they also seek a certain anonymity. The generic-looking defendant becomes a blank screen upon which jurors can project their own fears: that could be my neighbor, they may think, or that could be me. Anything idiosyncratic suggests personal needs and desires that are better left hidden. After all, it was those powerful and particular wants—to own a gold bracelet, to vent anger at a girlfriend, to drink and drive fast—that brought the accused to court in the first place.

But being aware of the courtroom’s dress code, and obeying it, may itself convey the crucial message to the jury. Those who wear what’s expected to court enact the drama of crime and punishment in miniature: they are demonstrating in the most visible and literal way that they recognize society’s laws, and submit to them. When the gavel falls, that’s the message that Justice’s deputies are looking to see.

Picking a Jury—the Top Ten List

By Jonathan G. Stein

More has been written on selecting a jury than probably any other part of
trial. Highlighted below— a la David Letterman’s Top Ten
list—are the “Top Ten Jury Selection Points”:

10. Get your jury talking. A silent jury pool is a bad jury
pool; it doesn’t matter what side you’re on. You can’t possibly make informed
decisions about who to keep and who to excuse without listening to what they
have to say.

9. Open-ended questions are preferred because they get
jurors talking. There is a time and place for a closed-ended question: For
example, in a personal injury case, you may ask “Is there any reason you would
not give the plaintiff money for her wage loss?” But always followed up with an
open-ended question.

8. Keep private matters private. It’s strange that this
needs to be listed, but some lawyers read something marked “private” on a juror
questionnaire and then ask about it in open court. Jurors need our discretion.
If you really must find out about something marked “private,” ask for a sidebar
with the judge. You owe the potential juror that much.

7. Follow the judge’s rules! Some judges don’t want you to
ask about hardships or how long a juror can serve. Some judges want to ask a
lot of questions before you get a turn. Follow the judge’s rules and you’ll
keep the judge happy.

6. Practice, practice, practice. Jury selection may be the
hardest part of the trial. You’re speaking with an audience of 30 to 60 people
or more—so practice!

5. Let the jurors feed off of each other. If a juror is
talking and you see other jurors nodding their heads, ask them about it.

4. Give jurors an “out”—an opportunity to express their
concerns. For example, at the end of your questions, follow up with “Ladies and
gentlemen, is there any reason you cannot be fair to my client? Maybe I forgot
to ask you something. Maybe there is an issue you think I need to know about.”

3. Be yourself. Jurors can tell when you’re putting on an
act.

2. A good jury consultant is worth his or her weight in
gold! If you have a case that warrants the use of a jury consultant, hire the
consultant and use that expertise to tell you what you need to know.

1. Remind jurors “ ’Tis better to not serve on a case
sometimes.” Although jury duty is an important civic responsibility, it’s
sometimes best that jurors not serve. Maybe aspects of the case makes it
impossible for them to be fair and impartial. In that situation, remind them
that there are other opportunities.

Picking a jury is one of the most important parts of a trial. Review this
“Top Ten” list and keep these points in the back of your mind when you’re
making your picks.

For more information or to learn more about this article please contact Hennington & Associates at www.juryconsulting.com, Marshall Hennington, Ph.D. at (646)375-2098, (310)205-5510 or (305) 914-3769