So, you think you nailed your voir dire…
Jurors are bonding with you, they’re engaged, and it feels like a REAL conversation instead of a STALE Q&A.
Then, OUT OF NOWHERE, one juror starts “helpfully” suggesting random facts they believe you need.
If you’ve ever seen a NEAR-PERFECT VOIR DIRE get blindsided by off-topic tangents, this episode is for YOU.
We’re diving into H2H strategies like:
🎯 Stop, Start, String – The ULTIMATE TRIFECTA to smoothly steer jurors back on track.
🎯 Devil’s Advocate Tone – How to raise the defense’s argument without confusing your jury.
🎯 Embracing Objections – Because a lively group discussion often riles up the defense, and that’s a GOOD SIGN.
Jurors mean well, but if you’re not CAREFUL, their “help” can blow up your ENTIRE opening strategy.
WANT TO KEEP YOUR MASTERPIECE VOIR DIRE FROM BACKFIRING?
Tune in NOW and learn how to nudge jurors back on track WITHOUT KILLING the connection you’ve built.
Xo,
Sari
➡️FREE FB GROUP FOR PLAINTIFF & CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
“There are three things I always teach when I talk about how to facilitate, especially when the conversation starts going the wrong way: Stop, Start, or String. ‘Stop’ means you tell the juror, ‘I’m going to stop you right there,’ and clarify it’s irrelevant or not part of the case. ‘Start’ means you shift the focus with a new question or direction. ‘String’ means you connect a piece of what they said to what actually matters. With these three techniques, you keep the discussion productive and aligned with your case.”
sari de la motte
ENCORE EPISODE TRANSCRIPTION
Hello, darlings. How are you?
Welcome to another episode of From Hostage to Hero.
It's a very juicy topic today, and before I drop that in... drop in... drop that in? Drop myself in. Okay, I'm dropping myself in. Before I drop that content, how about that? I need to remind you that we have a free course where you can learn some great voir dire shit. It's called Let the Jury Solve Your Problems, and if you go to sariswears.com/jury, you can get that and the workbook, and it's awesome. I want you, when you get the email, to hit reply and tell me what you think of the training, because I'm loving getting those comments. People are loving it.
So today has something to do with that, because if you get really good at voir dire, you can have some problems. I know that's weird to say, but I keep seeing this. It's kind of the curse of being awesome: when you conduct a great voir dire, you can actually hurt yourself if you do not recognize that you are doing some of the things that I am going to talk about today.
Here is the big thing I think you need to recognize that...
When you are conducting a great voir dire and you have great rapport with jurors... Now, let's stop there and talk about that. We don't teach you in the H2H method how to have rapport with jurors. I know, weird, right? But we don't. We don't talk about how to break the ice or what jokes to talk about or how to talk about yourself or how to create a relationship. We don't do any of that shit. The way that we create rapport with jurors is by meeting them where they are.
That's why we have what's called the issue-oriented voir dire.
It is based on the issues in our case, creating a voir dire around it, and guess what? Letting the jury solve our problems for us—solve our issues for us. But in terms of rapport building, guess what? Jurors want to deal with issues.
As you've heard me talk about before, we are either tending to a relationship or dealing with an issue in any communication situation. Jurors are not there for a relationship, so guess what? They want to know why they're there (the issue), we have issues we need them to solve, and yay, we marry the two. They're happy because now they understand why they're here and what they need to do. We're happy because they're solving our problems for us.
That creates rapport—or as we like to call it in our biz over here at H2H, that creates permission, meaning how receptive someone is to you or your message. We want jurors receptive. They're going to be most receptive when we meet them where they are, when we go to the “issue” bucket.
So when you have this rapport or permission with jurors, something is going to happen that you need to be on the lookout for.
If you don't know this is happening, you're going to get in trouble, and your voir dire is going to hurt you. Here it is: they are going to want to help you.
I know, you're like, “That's it? That's what you have for me, Sari?” Yes, that's what I have for you. You might think, “Well, that's a good thing.” It can be, but it can also backfire. Here's what I mean.
You've heard me talk a couple of podcasts ago about how you might unwittingly legitimize defense arguments, so let's use that as an example. If you didn't listen to that podcast, I'll tell you what I mean here.
In our method, we talk about how you create these funnels that get the jury to give you the principle in the case. You know the principle you're driving toward, and then you develop a set of questions to unearth that principle and have jurors hand it over to you.
Yes, it's awesome, and I talk about how to do it in the app and in the free course, so go there—not right now, but when we're done—because you're going to love it.
Let's say you're going down your funnel and the jury gives you your principle, and then we say the next step after that (which isn't always needed, but we do it often) is to use what we call a devil's advocate question. What's a devil's advocate question? It's a defense point.
Because here's the thing: you never, ever put a defense point in a funnel. You are always funneling to a principle, a plaintiff principle. You are never funneling to a defense point.
If you get the principle and you're still wondering, “Are there jurors out there who are defense-oriented and do not believe in 99% of this principle as most people do? How do I find them?”—we say use a devil's advocate question. It's a defense point, and you say, “Yeah, but...” and then you say the defense point.
For example, let's say it's a slip and fall case, and you have the jury give you the principle you want (which you've identified ahead of time). They say, “Store owners must keep their stores safe so people don't trip and hurt themselves.” Now you might say a defense devil's advocate point: “Yeah, but store owners have lots to do. Shouldn't people just look where they're walking if there's something on the ground?” That is what the defense is going to say or at least hint at.
Now, if you have created this great rapport—this great voir dire with your jurors—they're super open to you, they want to help you for a couple of reasons. Let's actually stop and talk about why they want to help you. It comes down to a few things:
🎯 A sense of right and wrong. We deal with these fundamental truths we call principles—like the idea that if there's something slippery on the floor, someone could trip and hurt themselves. Nobody is going to disagree with that, not even the defense. That's why, when we get our case focused on these principles, we make it about right and wrong, and jurors want to be on the side of right. You're on the side of right, so jurors want to align with you.
🎯 Group dynamics. If we look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, belonging is a top five need. We do not want to be on the outs. We want to be thinking what the group is thinking. That's what we want to do. In the H2H method, we talk a lot about how to form that group, how to get the group thinking and wanting to do things together. Because in voir dire, they don't do their work individually. In the verdict room, they have to talk and work together, so we teach them how to do that from the beginning.
🎯 They don't want to be wrong. They don't want to look stupid. When a juror says something you don't want, you never make them wrong. That's why we have our designed alliance at the beginning, to avoid making them feel stupid right off the bat. Jurors know they don't have all the information and might be grasping, trying to figure things out. They're hoping to piece things together so they won't feel dumb.
Going back to the slip and fall example, if you say “Yeah, but store owners are busy and don't have time to clean all the time. Shouldn't people look where they're walking?” in a normal tone of voice, you unwittingly legitimize it, because you're having this great rapport with them. They think, “Oh, I guess so,” because they're following you. That's what leadership is—you get the group to rally around your principles. That's why, when you use a devil's advocate point, you have to know what you're doing, which isn't that hard. You just need to use a weird or sarcastic tone of voice that communicates this is bullshit. “Yeah, but store owners are busy. They can't be looking all the time. Just look where you're walking.” Notice my tone of voice there—I've communicated to the jury that this is not a serious statement. Now, if somebody out there thinks, “Actually, that's true,” great, we know where they are.
This is the idea: they want to help you, they want to be on the side of right, they want to be in the group, and they don't want to look stupid. If you are super curious and have them talking a lot, you need to know how to facilitate or it can go off the rails.
Let's look at another example: a bicycle case. The attorney was doing a great voir dire, and a juror asked, “Are bikes allowed in the street, or should they be in the bike lane?” The whole conversation turned into whether the bicyclist belonged in the street or the bike lane. The attorney didn't know how to bring it back, which I'll show you how to do at the end of the podcast. By the time the jurors figure out that's not an issue in the case, they're going to be mad you let them talk about something irrelevant. That's another reason we use context statements in voir dire: “This case involves a hospital. Someone was injured.” Very short, but it gives them a little bit of info so they don't go down irrelevant paths.
So the second way conducting a great voir dire can hurt you is if you do not know how to facilitate. Because it's an open-ended, curious approach, the jurors are going to talk to you more than in a typical voir dire, and you have to manage that conversation.
There are three things I always teach when I talk about how to facilitate, especially when the conversation starts going the wrong way:
🎯 Stop. You can say, “I'm going to stop you right there. This case has nothing to do with X, Y, or Z,” or “You will not have to decide that as a juror.” If they start going down a path that doesn't matter, stop them.
🎯 Start. Sometimes you don't need a big stop because the entire group isn't going off track, so you can simply shift the direction: “Thank you. Let me ask you all this...” You redirect them.
🎯 String. You take a kernel of something they said and tie it to what your case is really about. “That’s not an issue here, but that brings up a good point,” and then you move them where you want them to go.
So, stop, start, or string—these are your facilitation techniques. Use them because the jury wants to help you, they're talking a lot, and you need to skillfully guide the conversation.
Lastly, another way conducting a great voir dire can hurt you is that you might get objected to or face motions. This is not a bad thing. It means the H2H method is gaining ground, it's effective, and we need to fight harder. Do not get freaked out if you start getting objections or motions in limine like, “You can't ask about jurors' expectations.” Bullshit. Then just don't use the word “expectations” if that's the problem. I'm telling you, this is going to happen more and more as you do great voir dire, because the defense isn't going to see it coming and the judge might not either. It's new, it's effective, and if you're willing to be on the front lines, you have to put up with this. Don't let it knock you off your game—that is a sign you are doing it right.
Just like how your saboteur comes out when you're about to do something awesome, the other side’s saboteur comes out too. Expect it. Don't go into what we call a “saboteur party,” where their saboteur shows up, then yours shows up, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Stay in your space of, “Oh, I'm getting objected to—I must be doing it right.”
All right. Continue to conduct those awesome voir dires, knowing the jury will want to help you and you'll need strong facilitation skills to handle that. That is awesome. You are awesome. Talk soon.
Have you ever wished you knew what the jury was thinking? Well, grab a pen and paper because I’m about to give you instant access to a free training I created for plaintiff trial attorneys. It’s called Three Powerful Strategies to Help You Read a Juror's Mind, and it will help you understand what the jury is thinking so you can feel confident and trust yourself in the courtroom. Ready? Head to sariswears.com/jury and enjoy!
Free Training
3 pOWERFUL STRATEGIES TO HELP YOU READ A JUROR'S MIND
Let the Jury Solve Your Problems in 3 Easy Steps
Join me for a free training to understand what the jury is thinking so you have the confidence to trust them - and yourself - in the courtroom.
Use the H2H Funnel Method so that jurors tell YOU the principles of the case instead of you telling THEM.
Subscribe to the Podcast
Tune in weekly as Sari shares tips that will help you up your game at trial, connect with jurors, and build confidence in your abilities so that you’ll never worry about winning again.
You're more than the size of your verdict.
(I swear.)
Sign up for trial tips, mindset shifts, and whatever else is on Sari’s brilliant fucking mind.
