A Cygnus Business Media Website            






Sponsored By:








Boost Your Credibility in Court

With a Darth Vader Toothbrush


Posted: Monday, September 21, 2009
Updated: September 18th, 2009 11:09 AM EDT

Most Read Stories TodayMost Read Most E-mailed Stories TodayMost E-mailed E-mail This StoryE-mail Article Print This StoryPrint Article

VAL VAN BROCKLIN
Training Contributor


Credibility in court is the degree to which the Judge or jurors believe a witness. For a testifying officer to be effective, she must be found credible. In several past articles (web links below), we've looked at different aspects of courtroom credibility for the testifying officer.

This month, we're going to look at how vivid details can boost a witness' credibility.

Made to Stick

In Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, the authors, brothers Chip and Dan Heath, say,

We wrote this book to help you make your ideas stick. By "stick," we mean that your ideas are understood and remembered, and have a lasting impact - they change your audience's opinions or behavior.

That's not unlike what an officer must do in court. The facts she testifies to must be understood and remembered. Those facts, along with any other evidence, must change the jurors' opinions from presumed innocent to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Made to Stick is a book I recommend to anyone who must communicate persuasively with others in a non-tactical situation. It would not replace Verbal Judo but it's a superb book for leaders, trainers, trial advocates, marketers, pastors, school teachers, public relations personnel, etc.

After extensive research, the impressively qualified Heath brothers (who do not come across as overly impressed with themselves) found that ideas that "stick" share six principles. One of those principles is credibility and they examine how to ensure that the messenger and message are believed by people.

Paint a picture because seeing is believing

Details are a way to boost credibility. Details give internal veracity to your account of something.

Vivid details create a striking, distinct mental image. Describing exactly what someone was wearing, where exactly they were, how exactly they were standing - even if those particular facts are not necessary to the case - creates a concrete picture in the jurors' minds that makes them think that what you are saying is credible. Seeing IS believing.

Also, if we can say it, show it, and prove it in the details, people are more likely to remember what we say.

Studies have shown that vivid details, even ones that aren't essential to the core message, have a dramatic and positive impact on how information is digested.

Consider these two possible ad lines from Six Keys to a Viral Message that Sticks: Part 4 - Carry Credibility (web link below):

  • Fact based: Duracell batteries last fifteen percent longer.
  • Vivid detail based: Using Duracell batteries in your portable DVD player will give you an extra hour and a half of play time. On the long drive to Grandma's this Christmas, that means an extra hour and a half of peace and quiet in your car.

In a criminal trial, the core message is the essential elements of the crime(s) charged and the facts necessary to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's look at how vivid details can boost witness credibility in court.

Credibility and the Darth Vader Toothbrush

The Heath brothers relate an experiment conducted by Jonathan Shedler and Melvin Manis in which they simulated two trials. Such experiments have been replicated. (See, Social Psychology, Kenneth S. Bordens, Irwin A. Horowitz (2001), p. 213-14, relating a similar experiment in a construction contract dispute and Vivid Persuasion in the Courtroom, Brad E. Bell; Elizabeth F. Loftus, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49, Issue 6, 1985, Pages 659 - 664.)

In the Made to Stick account, two groups of subjects playing the role of jurors were given transcripts of a (fictitious) trial to read. Jurors were tasked with assessing the fitness of a mother, Mrs. Johnson, and deciding whether she should keep custody of her 7-year-old son.

The transcripts were designed to be closely balanced - each had 8 arguments for and 8 arguments against Mrs. Johnson. All the jurors heard the same arguments. The only difference in the two trials was the level of detail in the arguments.

In one trial, all the arguments that supported Mrs. Johnson had some vivid detail and the arguments against her were just the relevant facts with no descriptive detail. The other trial contained the opposite combination - vivid details in the arguments against Mrs. Johnson and none in the arguments for her.

For example, one argument in the mother's favor said:

Mrs. Johnson sees to it that her child washes and brushes his teeth before bedtime.

The vivid form of this argument added the detail:

He uses a Star Wars toothbrush that looks like Darth Vader.

An argument against the mother was:

The child went to school with a badly scraped arm which Mrs. Johnson had not cleaned or attended to. The school nurse had to clean the scrape.

The vivid form of the arguments against Mrs. Johnson added the detail that as the nurse was cleaning the scrape she spilled Mercurochrome on her uniform, staining it red.

The details were designed to be irrelevant to the judgment of Mrs. Johnson's fitness. It mattered whether she attended her son's scrape or ensured his hygiene. It didn't matter that the nurse's uniform was stained or what action figure the boy's toothbrush was modeled after.

The result? Jurors who heard the favorable arguments with vivid details judged Mrs. Johnson to be a more suitable parent than jurors who hear the unfavorable arguments with vivid details. The details had a significant impact.

Why did the details make a difference? They boosted the credibility of the argument. If I can see the Darth Vader toothbrush, I can see the boy brushing his teeth in the bathroom which, in turn, let's me see and remember Mrs. Johnson being a good mother. (Made to Stick, p. 138-139.)

I witnessed the power of vivid detail in a child sexual abuse case I prosecuted. One of the witnesses was a civilian who had come upon the defendant attempting to anally rape my 10-year-old boy victim behind a tractor trailer truck in a parking lot. It went to trial as an attempt because this witness and his co-worker apprehended the defendant and called the police before the crime could be completed. But not before they saw the defendant behind the boy with the boy's pants down and the defendant's penis exposed.

On cross examination, the defense attorney tried to raise some doubt about the civilian's eye witness account. When the witness described the young boy's Mutant Ninja Turtle underpants, it was all over. That vivid detail carried the rest of the sordid scene.

The lessons for officers

The public, including jurors, cannot begin to imagine many of the things you deal with on the street. One or two vivid details in your testimony - the kind that paint a striking and distinct picture - can help them. It can also boost your credibility and the credibility of your message. Look for such details and testify to them.

You can also boost the credibility of victims and witnesses you interview. Ask them to picture the incident and describe it to you in detail. Bring out in detail what they saw, heard, smelled, tasted and touched.

A detail about the smell of a suspect's aftershave or hair gel, the chaffing of his unshaved face, the Spiderman bedspread or pajamas, the Sponge Bob toy, the logo on a t-shirt, baseball cap, or belt buckle, the vanity license plate, the hula doll stuck to the dashboard may not be material to the essential elements of the crime, but they may be the difference in the jurors believing a witness - or not.




Web Links:

Described by Calibre Press as "the indisputable master of enter-train-ment," Val Van Brocklin is an internationally sought speaker, trainer and noted author. She combines a dynamic presentation style with over 10 years experience as a prosecutor where her trial work received national media attention on ABC's Primetime Live, the Discovery Channel's Justice Files, in USA Today, The National Enquirer and REDBOOK. In addition to her personal appearances, she appears on television, radio, and webcasts, in newspapers, journal articles and books. Visit her website: www.valvanbrocklin.com

» More Stories From On the Street



Share your thoughts, advice, opinions, and expertise @ Officer.com

     
Comments

Posted by Silent in Pittsburgh
(09/22/09 - 05:46 PM)
"The facts she testifies to must be understood and remembered. Those facts, along with any other evidence, must change the jurors' opinions from presumed innocent to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
" - and serveral other parts to this opinion piece.
Um, apparently you don't want them to even consider said person is innocent? How about advising them to just say the facts represented by evidence rather than trying to convince of guilt through worldplay? Why not just tell them to lie to make things work better? And it seems like you are encouraging officers to produce vivid details of beliefs or facts when they help the case and withhold them when they don't, purposely hoping to mislead the jury and pushing them to the prosecutions side.



Posted by Really?
(09/23/09 - 09:01 AM)
Silent, think you ran a little far with that one. Many officers are uncomfortable on the stand and, though good cops, aren't good testifiers. Think she's trying to give some advice on giving better and more detailed testimony.

And the line you quoted that the facts, and other evidence, must change jurors opinions from presumed innocence to guilt... umm, isn't that what are job is to do. We represent the state's case against the defendant. I mean, everyone starts with presumed innocence in court. So if a jury is to convict, their opinions by definition must switch from innocence to guilt if there is a conviction.

Don't think there are any cynical undertones here. Basically, the author of the article is giving advice on testimony... very simple.



Posted by Redders
(09/26/09 - 07:31 PM)
The author is attempting to inform officers of the importance of articulation when testifying in criminal proceedings. Articulation is not fact manipulation, nor is it some type of anti-suspect/corrupt cop voodoo.



Posted by Val VanBrocklin in Beltsville, Maryland
(10/08/09 - 10:21 AM)
Dear Silent and Really?

Thank you both for your readership and caring and thinking enough to comment.

Silent, I can see how I might have worded the one sentence you focused on better.

That said, please understand that I come from a prosecutor's point of view. It is the prosecutor's duty to review the evidence the police have gathered and make a decision as to whether it equals proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If it does not, I don't proceed. If I decide it does and charge the defendant and cause him or her to stand trial, I no longer presume the defendant innocent. In fact, I will advocate to the best of my ability for his or her conviction by presenting to the jury what I believe to be credible proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense attorney also need not presume the defendant is innocent. Indeed, the defense attorney should not concern himself with the defendant's guilt or innocence because the defendant is entitled to the same defense regardless.

The defense attorney's job is to try to raise a reasonable doubt about that evidence and/or present any available defenses -- even if the defense attorney presumes or even believes the defendant is guilty. That's our adversarial system.

It is the JURY's job to presume a defendant innocent until proven guilty.

It is the officer's job to testify truthfully to the facts as he or she recalls them. To the extent the sentence you focused on suggests the officer should take an advocate's role, it is poorly worded.

Really? Thanks for getting my intention and meaning. While always testifying truthfully, officers can increase the likelihood of their testimony being understood, remembered and believed by the jury by including details that paint a vivid picture, even if those details are not necssary to prove the elements of the crime(s) charged. And officers can do the same for witnesses they interview by eliciting such details from them.

Thanks you both for your service.

Val Van Brocklin








Officer.com E-Mail Alerts
Sign Up for Free e-mail Alerts

Daily News & Features
Officer Down Alerts
Special Offers
Weekly Job Alerts