Episode 253: The Heliotropic Effect: What it Is and How it Can Get You a Verdict

(SPECIAL GUEST: ROY CHANG)

🥁🥁🥁 Drumroll please! 🥁🥁🥁

WE HAVE A GUEST SPEAKER: ROY CHANG.

In this episode, he's sharing insights from an article he wrote about the Heliotropic Effect that aligns perfectly with our H2H method and philosophy.

And he explains that as trial attorneys, this concept is something you simply CANNOT afford to ignore.

Don’t miss out — this episode is what will BREAK YOU FREE from your law school brain and it is exactly what you need to flip the courtroom dynamics completely.

Tune in now.

Xo,
Sari

➡️Listen on Spotify

➡️Listen on Apple

➡️Listen on YouTube

➡️FREE FB GROUP FOR PLAINTIFF & CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

"We were programmed to think, 'Well, jurors are against us. They're for the bad side.' We go with that. Our whole jury selection is based on, 'Pick out the bad guys. Find the bad guys, kick them out.' Never did I think about, 'Well, is that really true?' Jurors that I've talked to, a lot of times, they're just like us. They're no different than us. So why can't we communicate in that realm that they're not bad guys? We just need to communicate with them."

sari de la motte

episode 253 Transcription

Sari de la Motte:
Well, welcome, everyone. Today is a very exciting day because I have a podcast guest, something I'm hoping to do a little bit more of this year and into next year. But today's guest is Roy Chang from Hawaii, so I definitely want to go there. He is going to share with us an article that he wrote on some principles that match with the H2H philosophy and method. It's very interesting and you're definitely going to want to listen to it. Welcome, Roy. Thank you so much for being here.

Roy Chang:
Oh, thank you for inviting me.

Sari de la Motte:
Yeah. Tell me a little about who you are, how long you've been practicing, and what's your focus down there in Hawaii?

Roy Chang:
Sure. Yeah, I've been doing the personal injury on the plaintiff's side for over 43 years.

Sari de la Motte:
43 years! How did I not even know that? Oh my gosh, I think you might've told me that, but it went over my head because you don't look like you've been practicing law for 43 years. Continue.

Roy Chang:
Oh, thank you. I've always been in search of the best way to do our cases and the best way to represent the plaintiffs? I've been through the whole gamut of Rules of the Road. I've been to those seminars. I've also been to the Reptile theory and I've been to those seminars. I thought I saw, it must've been an article, and also about your book. When I read the article, I said, "What's different?" I think about the H2H. It's what I had believed inside, that jurors are really hostages. We have all been programmed, and I think Rob said it great this morning when he said that we have lawyer law school brains.

Sari de la Motte:
Yes.

Roy Chang:
We carry that with us as practicing lawyers. We always thought in order to win our cases, we had to be better ourselves. We had to be better trial lawyers. We had to do these things and whatever. Rarely do we focus on what's going on inside the jurors' brains. That's where I think the shift has come as far as my experience goes. Yeah, I think we really need to take a look at that. When I heard about you and H2H, that's where it all came together, that it was looking at what the jurors are doing.

Sari de la Motte:
As unique as you are, your experience isn't as unique because so many people find me around at least 20 plus years, if not 30 or more, and they have done all of the things. You hit on exactly why I wrote the book. Because when I first got into this field, it wasn't even a field that I decided I was going to play in, I got pulled into it and now I love it. But I just started reading everything I could get my hands on. I'm so lucky that Rick Friedman was one of my first mentors and that was the thing nobody was talking about. I'm like, "Wait a minute, what about the jurors?" There was a lot about how do we influence them and how do we make sure that they vote our way, but what's going on in their brain was the exact reason I wrote the book. I'm so glad that it had that effect on you.

Sari de la Motte:
You've been in the H2H crew. You mentioned that Rob, one of our other members, not that there's just two of you, but we were in a training together this morning. Actually we're almost up to 250. I know you're not a founder, Roy, but you're pretty close after we opened.

Roy Chang:
Right.

Sari de la Motte:
You're in the crew, which is where we play with all of these concepts. You had sent me an article, which is why we are podcasting today, and it's on the heliotropic effect, which is what the name of today's podcast is about and how this is going to affect your cases. I'll just start the article, and those of you listening, you all get a copy of this in the show notes if you want to go and download it there at sariswears.com/podcast. I can't promise it will be on any of the actual streaming platforms, but we will have it on our website for sure. You can get a copy of this.

Sari de la Motte:
But it starts out, Roy says, "Sari once said, 'Jurors are biased for you, meaning, because you stand out on the side of the right, there's no impartiality that we want from jurors. There are no two sides to evil. We are on the right side. On the good side. Why would jurors be biased for us? Back to Roy? Is it because Sari says so?'" I say, "Duh." "Or is it because of a scientific principle, a basic idea or rule that explains or controls how something happens or works? My curiosity led me on a quest to find this 'point of principle'". Tell us what the heliotropic effect is and why as trial attorneys, we should care about this.

Roy Chang:
Sure. Let me go back to when I first heard you say that jurors are biased for us and they were always on the side of the right, win, lose or draw, we're always on the side of the right. Those words really resonated with me, and it was on the back of the brain all along. I happened to be reading a book by Kim Cameron, it's called The Positively Energizing Leadership. He mentions for the first time I've ever heard of it, the heliotropic effect. I was, "Gosh, what is that?" He explains that if we were to take a plant and put it in front of a window, the plant will always lean towards the sun. That's because the sun is the life-giving energy for all living beings. But he also said it doesn't apply just to plants, it also applies to humans.

Roy Chang:
When I heard that, and as I'm reading through his book, it'd came down to, could this be something that explains why they're biased for us? Is it something that's not just in the brain, but in every cell of the body, that we will always gravitate towards what is good, what is life-giving, and away from what is life-depleting and also what destroys life? As plaintiff's lawyers, we're on the side of the good side, they're the dark side. Really it starts to make sense. The light bulb goes off. Yeah, that's what we have to look at.

Sari de la Motte:
Well, what's so funny about that too is that you are one of many who've said to me either in a seminar or in a coaching session went, "Stop. Wait. Say that again?" I think you know that, you just said, we say it all the time. "We stay on the side of the right. We're on the right side, they're on the bad side." But when I say it, it's almost like you guys are like, "Oh, it's true. We really do stand on the side of the right." And so many of you have written to me and said, "That really just grounded me in the work that we do, versus we're trying. It's us against them. It can go either way." It's like, "No, no, no. There's only one right side here."

Sari de la Motte:
But I would say also that, this is pretty revolutionary. Because the very thing that we are hoping jurors are, at least in the old system, is unbiased and impartial. As you know, Roy, I think that's not even a thing. I don't know that that person exists in the world that can be like, "I have no thoughts either way. I have no leanings either way." It just doesn't exist, I don't think. What are your thoughts?

Roy Chang:
Yeah, exactly. Going back again to the law school brain. We were programmed to think, "Well, jurors are against us. They're for the bad side." We go with that. Our whole jury selection is based on, "Pick out the bad guys. Find the bad guys, kick them out." Never did I think about, "Well, really is that true?" Jurors that I've talked to, a lot of times, they're just like us. They're no different than us. So why can't we communicate in that realm that they're not bad guys. We just need to communicate with them. It's really kind of interesting.

Sari de la Motte:
I think you just hit on something huge, though, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Because I think that's what it is. I think you do believe you're on the side of the right. But until I came along, you didn't realize the jurors were too. I think that's what it was, is marrying those two things. Saying you're on the side of the right, therefore most of the jurors, if not all of them, are going to side with you because again, of what we're talking today. Sorry, I just had to grab that because that made sense in my brain in that moment.

Roy Chang:
No, I think that's really true. When we start taking a look at, okay, how do we use this. If it is really something that's more than just the brain, but actually goes down to every cell of the human body, that's what Kim Cameron talks about. He says, "The heliotropic effect is with every single cell of the human body." It's like with a sunflower. The sunflower rises with the sun, it follows the sun, and it sets with the sun. Then it reprograms itself to start all over again. Well, the human body does exactly the same thing. Yeah, if that's true, then how do we use that? How do we use a source of light to our best advantages? Of course, we've looked at the reptile theory. The reptile theory basically says, it's the reptile brain. Well, I can understand. It was really cool that David is now looking also what's going on inside the jurors as opposed to, "Hey, you just got to be a good trial lawyer."

Sari de la Motte:
I wonder why he's doing that?

Roy Chang:
Love David. He's a cool guy.

Sari de la Motte:
Yeah, very cool.

Roy Chang:
But the reptile brain, it's just more reactionary. The [inaudible 00:10:04] reacts to things. It doesn't make decisions. It doesn't have that gut feeling. Now the heliotropic effect does because if it's in every cell of our body, then it's part of our DNA. Where do we get that DNA from? We got from our ancestors. What have they learned? They learned how to survive. They learned how to be part of a tribe. They passed all that down to all of us. I think that's where H2H has really opened the door to that's where we have to play.

Sari de la Motte:
Yeah, so interesting. Because here and you're talking about the reptile brain, and that was huge, what, 20 years ago or whatnot, and there's great stuff in there, don't get me wrong. But you said the reptile brain is only interested in three things. Can I eat it? Will it eat me? And can I fuck it? It doesn't care about choosing one side or the other.

Sari de la Motte:
It was funny, I was reading a book the other night too, I can't remember the name of it because I just started it. But he was also talking about how the reptile brain, and you're walking across the crosswalk and it notices the cars before you can even cognitively think about it and creates all of the fight or flight that then gets you to move quickly out of the way. What I assume that whole line of thinking was attempting to do is, look, there's this fear response that as you say is in our DNA, so let's use that to scare the jurors into bringing a verdict for our favor. But as you say, that's not really where those decisions are being made. Tell us a little bit more about that. I loved this research study that you talked about with the mice and the cherries.

Roy Chang:
Sure, yeah. I was always kind of curious, is there something in the cells of our body that's just a fear. if we're part of our ancestors, there's got to be that. I kept looking for different articles about that, and I found this interesting study. It was done in 2013 at Emory University by researchers Kerry Ressler and Brian Diaz. What they did is, they took mice and they introduced the smell of cherries to these mice, and the same time they would give them an electric shock. So over time, of course, the mice became afraid of the smell of cherries, which is cool. We expected that. But what they didn't expect was, well, how would it affect their children? Would they have the same fear? So when the children are born and they started giving them the smell of the cherries, they also had the same fear, even though they were never shocked.

Roy Chang:
Then they went to the grandmice. The grandmice also had the same fear, even though they were never shocked. But most fascinating was, they took one of those that they had shocked and did an in vitro fertilization, and the in vitro little mice we're also afraid of the smell of cherries.

Sari de la Motte:
Wow.

Roy Chang:
So there's got to be some kind of a "fear gene" that's been passed on.

Sari de la Motte:
Absolutely. It's imprinted. Well, if that's true then, then why not just do the reptile and go in and find out our rats and kill them before they kill us? If we have this fear gene, which I believe we do, I talk a lot about our brains are wired for fear and they want to keep us safe. That's how they're wired. So why not use that fear in trial and play with that and have that be the motivator?

Roy Chang:
Right. I think it is, and we do need to play with it. But I think as you've told us many times, it's all about sequencing. When do we use it? I think you said it today that, jurors haven't heard the story yet. They haven't heard the story of what the defendant did or what the plaintiff did. To them, it's new.

Sari de la Motte:
It is new.

Roy Chang:
That really put the light bulb on in me to the point where, yeah, when we start a trial, the jurors don't know who to fear. They don't know who's the-

Sari de la Motte:
Hmm.

Roy Chang:
They don't know who's the good side or the light side. The only advantage we have is, we start first.

Sari de la Motte:
We get to go first. Yes. And we often screw that opportunity because we come in, as you know, you've practiced 43 years, you've seen it. We come in with, all right, this case is about money who can't give money? Or we come in with a defense point. This case involves whatever, something the defense is going to bring up, and what do you guys think about that? We put front and center a defense point, and yes, we're going to use fear, not to manipulate, we'll show you all how that you are listening right now, we'll show you how in a minute. But we do use it, but yet not straight and front and center to see who's here against us, kill them off, and then just accept whoever's left. Yes?

Roy Chang:
Yes. Yes. And it all starts with voir dire. The reason I love the H2H voir dire is because of the funnels. It's starts with the danger funnel. The great thing about the danger funnel is, we first ask that question, "Who here has ever had the experience?" What have we just done? We've now made it personal. We made it personal to them. And now their survival brain or genes start kicking in and says, "Well, there's something I better listen to here. This might be helpful to me. It might save my family or my life or my children." That's where I think we start, and you start at the right place with the [inaudible 00:15:30] and then going into the fear.

Sari de la Motte:
Well, that's the great thing too is because, when you were saying that, we start with the who here has ever? We make it personal, but we also make it universal. So that again is such a philosophy and a foundation for the H2H method is that, most people on your jury pool will have had this experience. If they haven't, you need to pick a different experience. Most people will say that it can be avoided. I think that's the other thing with sequencing, when I did a podcast on last month or so, which is, how do you combat the shit happens defense? As you just mentioned, and I mentioned it again this morning in the H2H crew training is, it hasn't happened yet to the jurors. If we teach first, here's this way to avoid it, and then we tell them, and here's what they chose to do, then it absolutely reverses that effect.

Sari de la Motte:
But the same can be said in jury selection. I think we are often, as you guys start in law school, thinking that the jury's the problem, they're the enemy. They're going to have defensive attribution. They're going to blame my plaintiff. Instead of looking for ways to try to get around that, I've always said, "Let's work with it." If they are going to try to make this not happen, let's let them be smart. Tell us, how do you think this could be avoided?

Roy Chang:
Right, exactly.

Sari de la Motte:
That then solves our problem right away. Those of you who are not familiar with the funnel, we start a funnel, and a funnel just means, how are we going to get the jury to tell us, the principle, what we're driving to, instead of us telling them and then asking if they agree. So we always start with an experiential question, but the next question then is an expectation question. Which is, okay, those of you who have shared the road with a semi-truck. Maybe you've asked what that was like. "Oh, it was scary. I didn't know if they were going to come in my lane." "What's scary about that?" "Well, they could crush me." All the things. Well, what do you expect? A trucking company is here to reduce those dangers. Right there, as we talked about last time in the Expanding the Method call, there may be some danger-focused funnels and hope-focused funnels. Well, really in a funnel, there's their hope piece right there. Here's the way to avoid it. And what's so great about that is, the jury's telling us, instead of us telling them.

Roy Chang:
Right. They own it.

Sari de la Motte:
They own it now.

Roy Chang:
We didn't tell them. They came up with it themselves. And once they did, they own it. That will carry on to when we start doing our opening statements. That which is, "Oh yeah, I know about that. Yeah, I told them that. I told ... well, yeah, I told them how to avoid it. So yeah, he's just saying what I said."

Sari de la Motte:
Well, and especially when the defense gets up and says, "Listen, this was unavoidable." Now they're arguing, not with you, the attorney, they're arguing with the jury who just said, "We just gave you a list of how this could be avoided." We're not asking necessarily that question of what would your expectations be? What would you hope would happen? Because it's so funny, we've had that question backfire around this in a couple ways. One, is that this is becoming so popular that people are now writing motions about the expectation questions, which I guess that means I've made it. But two, lots of times we'll ask jurors, I've seen this in our mock jury as well, we'll say, "How many of you guys got here in a car today?" Everybody ... you know. "What are your expectations of other drivers?" What they'll say is, "Nothing. They're terrible. They're going to crash into me." So we've had to change the question to hope in some of those cases. "What do you hope other drivers do on the road?" "Oh, I'd hope they follow the rules. I'd hope they do this ..."

Sari de la Motte:
Then, the winning question, what could happen if they don't? That really brings us back to the fear. So there's this fear in the air, there's this thing that could avoid it, but if we don't have that thing, this is the result with the what could happen if question.

Roy Chang:
Right. Yeah.

Sari de la Motte:
How do you think that all fits in within this heliotropic effect?

Roy Chang:
Mm-hmm. Well, I think the heliotropic effect is, it's really these fear genes that are trying to protect us. They're there. We will gravitate towards that, which is going to give us the hope that you talked about.

Sari de la Motte:
Yeah.

Roy Chang:
But also against the side that's trying to take away that. The one trying to take away parts of our life. When the defendants injure somebody, it's more than just the physical injury. They start taking away things from their life. Their enjoyment of life. Their hope for the future, the hope for their families. When they kill somebody, they take it all away. That's, I think, where now the jurors can really see, "Oh, okay, that really is the dark side." They're the ones who are really doing this to people, and we need to stop that. I think that's where it ultimately gets to hopefully the right verdict.

Sari de la Motte:
What do you say then to people who are like, "Wait a minute?" You've seen it, because you've been around in the crew long enough that when our new people come in, they're really like, "What are we doing? This doesn't make any sense. Well, when do we find our bad jurors? Why aren't we asking these questions that will go and find our rats? This is too woo-woo, and you're trying to build a group." But then all these "bad jurors" are going to sneak onto your jury. What would you say to that? Having been in this for now a couple years?

Roy Chang:
I would say that, there could always be a juror like that, and usually they'll pop their heads up at some point in time. But if we start with the premise that everybody has a fear, and the fear is that somebody out there is going to hurt me or my family, then I don't care. They're all going to have that same thing. That same, common shared experience is going to be, we don't want anybody hurting us. Once they start seeing that these are the people that hurt us, then all of a sudden, I think they shift to our side.

Roy Chang:
I also put one more thing in this article about, if it's in the Bible, then sorry is absolutely correct. And it is. It's actually in the Bible. There is one passage that I happened to find, it's the John 3, we're familiar with John 3:16, "For God so love the world." This is what the Bible says, and this is the new international version. "This is the verdict."

Sari de la Motte:
The verdict.

Roy Chang:
The verdict. Yeah. That's what's used in the Bible. "Light has come into the world, but people love darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done on the sight of God." That's when it came to the light that, what do defendants do? They have their evil deeds. If they can settle the case, why do they settle it? Because they want to hide it.

Sari de la Motte:
That's right.

Roy Chang:
They don't want to bring it to light. But when we have a trial, what are we doing? We're shining the light on their evil deeds. Because trials are public. Trials are open to anyone. Trials now become visible to everyone to see, including the jurors themselves. No more hiding this stuff. Now they get to see in front of them. I think that's where they can see the evil, but they can also see our side, which is really the side of the truth. This is all we're asking. We're telling you this is the truth, and that's all we're asking you to find.

Sari de la Motte:
That's right. I love this because, I think it takes what the reptile started, which is like there's this fear that we all want to protect ourselves, and it adds kind of the savior. And, there's ways to avoid this. And, there's light in this dark place. Instead of, this is all dark and everyone wants to kill you. There is this lightness and this hope. We start with that. The sequencing, I think, is so huge here is that we're always starting with how can this be avoided? What if someone chooses not to take those steps? Result. Here's this danger. How can this be avoided? What if somebody chooses not to do that? Here's the result. After you play that through in voir dire, and then in opening and continuing, it's very clear who the bad guy is.

Sari de la Motte:
I love in your article, all the Star Wars references, it's the only sci-fi movies that I like. But you talk about the DVAQ, which is the devil's advocate question. What I thought was so interesting here is the idea that the snark really does kind look like the bad guy. So can you explain to our listeners what the DVAQ is?

Roy Chang:
Absolutely. Many times as we're going through our voir dire, we're trying to get the jurors to focus on these different kinds of principles and having them come up with how to avoid these things. We always at the same time have to be conscious of where's the defense going to come from? How do we get the jurors to respond to that potential defense they're going to come with and solve it for us?

Sari de la Motte:
Yeah, and without putting it front and center. Without putting it front and center. Mm-hmm.

Roy Chang:
That's really the devil's advocate question. We do it where H2H has doing it in such a way that we're really imitating the evil side. So if we're talking about the defense, okay, let me make it really evil looking. So we take the Emperor Palpatine, and then we go ahead and do these kinds of things. So the jury says, "Nah. Nah, nah, nah. We're not going to buy that." And let them solve the problem for us.

Sari de la Motte:
That's right. Right. For example, once we're down a funnel, we never do it before then. And once we have group agreement, yeah, yeah, trucking companies should train their drivers or shouldn't have them out on the road beyond these ... have trucking on the brain today, apparently. Then we say, "Yeah, but can they really train for this type of crash happening? Can training really prevent this from ..." We use that snarky tone, and then the jurors are like, "Yes." Because they've already owned the good principle that when we throw in this snarky, evil principle, then they reject it. Which is where, again, sequencing comes in. If we start with that, who here thinks that you can't train all crashes, which you can't obviously. But, everyone's going to raise their hand. But if you do it in the right sequencing, it's just like a beautiful, beautiful thing happens.

Sari de la Motte:
Well, anything else we need to know about the heliotropic effect?

Roy Chang:
Well, there is one other thing besides the fear gene. I also started doing some research and found that they're doing some research at Cambridge University, that not only do we have a fear gene, we also have an empathy gene. Again, that's the [inaudible 00:26:35] side, the light side, the hope side. How did we come up with this empathy gene? What did our ancestors do? Well, the only way they were able to survive, was as a tribe working together. Taking care of those who are injured. Taking care of the elderly. Taking care of the children. They developed part of the social interaction and the empathy feeling. Because you can't take care of somebody else if you don't feel anything for them. So you have to feel something for them to want to take care of them. Great, from the Cambridge research that's in us too. We have empathy genes at the same time.

Roy Chang:
How do we use H2H to really awaken the empathy gene? Again, sequencing is absolutely right. We can't do that until we have all the bad stuff and the bad guys talk about it first, and now how do we take care of what they did? How do we help the injured person? How can money help that injured person? Now the empathy starts to make sense. So, okay, you heard one of our tribes. Well, I don't like that, so I'm going to take care of that. I'm going to make sure you are held accountable for injuring somebody in our tribe. I think that's where am empathy comes into play.

Sari de la Motte:
And we have that beautiful conversation about price versus value. Another devil's advocate, a lighter one, but there is, "Yeah but, they died? What can money do in a death case?" The jurors would just roar back, "It can do this ... It can do this ..." And they solve all of our problems. People come to me all the time and say, "Sorry, I heard you say that a thousand times, but you are right, they will solve all of our problems." I think, I was just talking to one of our coaches this week about some of the new crewbies coming into the crew and how they're so struggling with this exclusionary voir dire that you've all been trained in, and the H2H method, which I wouldn't go as far as to say it's inclusionary, it's just it's really walking through a different door. What I was saying to the coaches, I said, "The first thing that you need to do is, this is a different system altogether. You're not going to be able to mold them together and be like, "Okay, how does that work with what I already know?"

Sari de la Motte:
It may later, but at first you just need to throw that idea out. We're trying to do something different here. Now while we're doing this different thing, our bad jurors are going to show up. We'll take care of them. We're doing that in a different way. We're still have very similar end result, but there's so much more benefit here. We don't just get rid of bad jurors, we also form our group and all of the things. But it's really a philosophy shift and mindset of this is so different than how I've been trained. I have a lot of empathy for that. When you've done it for 30, 40 years, and then some chick comes and tells you, "Hey, try this," that can be really frightening. Absolutely. Did you experience that when you first came into H2H?

Roy Chang:
Yeah. In a lot of respects it was like, hmm, how does some non-lawyer person tell us how to do lawyering. Until you start to hear why you're suggesting that we do these kinds of things, then all of a sudden things kind of fall into place, and then you understand why we do what we do in the H2H method. I think that's really quite brilliant as far as the strategies that we use. Again, matching to either the heliotropic effect or the genes that jurors have, it matches that. It supports [inaudible 00:29:59]. As opposed to shooting in dark and say, "Well, we think it's the brain. We think it's this." No, there's a system that really works towards what's inside of every single juror, and then it helps us to then persuade them, or actually, they're persuading themselves.

Sari de la Motte:
That's right.

Roy Chang:
That is a good question.

Sari de la Motte:
That's right. Yeah. We're just showing them the truth. We're showing them the light. We're letting the light shine. That's really all it takes. But getting there is oftentimes the issue because of our own stuff coming in. Well, but I need to talk about this and this and this, you're getting in the way. You're getting in the way. Let the light shine, and that will be enough.

Sari de la Motte:
Where I'm going to end with a quote from your article, the ending quote, which says, "In this epic battle between good and evil, light versus dark, we may not have a silver bullet, but we do have a light saber. It's in every juror's DNA. It's the side of the force that's more powerful. As Sari says, we are on the good side, the side of the right. The light. The truth.

Sari de la Motte:
Well, thank you so much for being here today, but also being in the crew. We just enjoy having you. You need to have your state association of justice have me come, because I want to come to Hawaii and talk with all of you. Thanks so much for being here.

Roy Chang:
Thanks, Sari, appreciate it. Thank you for inviting me.

Sari de la Motte:
Yeah. All right, we'll talk soon, everybody. Thanks so much.

Have you ever wished that 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 called Three Powerful Strategies to Help You Read a Juror's Mind. It's going to help you to understand what the jury is thinking, so you'll feel confident to trust them and yourself in the courtroom.

Ready for the address? Go to sariswears.com/jury. Enjoy.