Thoughts from the Trenches #1: Strategic Brevity in a Distracted World
By Dan Gallipeau, Ph.D., Co-founder & Chief Strategy Officer
This is the first in a series of posts sharing my thoughts and observations on the trial process, drawn from over 40 years as a trial consultant. Beyond my own research, I’ve been fortunate to collaborate with some of the most talented trial attorneys in the country. We’ve learned a great deal from each other—often over very bad coffee.
Modern jurors spend their days consuming bite-sized articles, scrolling through social media, and watching rapid-fire videos. Naturally, they carry these digital habits straight into the jury box. Their tolerance for long, meandering explanations has hit an all-time low. This impatience isn't just a Gen Z or Millennial trend; research reveals a dramatic increase in internet usage among jurors aged 50 and older. Driven by the isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic and reinforced by modern lifestyle changes, older adults have fully embraced the web after adapting to digital grocery shopping, telehealth, and online family connections.
Dumping too much data onto a jury carries severe consequences. Jurors don't just tune out—they push back. Overwhelmed by cognitive fatigue, they stop listening entirely and frequently direct their growing hostility toward the presenting counsel or witness. In a recent mock trial, a frustrated juror remarked of a defense expert: "He was trying to confuse us with facts." Working alongside the trial team, I have often watched jurors label one attorney as "focused and short" while writing off another as "unfocused and repetitive." You can see jurors lean forward in the jury box and remain alert for one lawyer, only to slouch back and put their pens down for another. To a modern audience, an overabundance of detail looks less like transparency and more like a deliberate smoke screen.
When complex technology or dense financial models must be taught to a lay jury in a matter of hours, strategic evidence selection becomes a defining element of trial preparation. Every word, exhibit, and witness must serve an explicit, highly condensed purpose. But a focus group or mock trial rarely occurs until much closer to trial—when the evidence is already locked in—I frequently hear attorneys lament, "I wish we had known this earlier."
Many trial attorneys recognize this temporal gap and increasingly seek early, accurate 'juror input' to shape strategy, refine depositions, and guide discovery. One partial solution has been gaining 'indirect juror input' through discussions with experienced trial consultants long before formal research begins. Now, AI is entering the picture, offering a significant enhancement to gathering accurate and detailed 'juror input.' However, the challenge will be ensuring this input accurately reflects how real jurors think—complete with all their messy, sometimes illogical thought processes.