Table of Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15
(5) Short, Long, Old & New Words – In deciding whether to use short words or long words, once again the best advice comes from Aristotle: “what we need is a mixed diction”. Through the careful mixing of short and long words, we gain the advantages of impact provided by the short words and rhythmic flow provided by long words. A review of some of the world’s greatest literature indicates that the use of short words, preferably one syllable, is replete in the works of many of the greatest writers. Shakespeare understood the use of rhetorical devices as demonstrated in Shylock’s powerful speech in the Merchant of Venice in which fifty-seven of the sixty-six words are one syllable. Page 33, supra.
Abraham Lincoln understood very well the power and effectiveness of one-syllable words. Consider the Gettysburg address, one of the most powerful and beautifully structured speeches in history, in which Lincoln conveys his message in 270 words, 203 of which (75%) are one syllable.
(Address delivered at the dedication of the Cemetery at Gettysburg)
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion–that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain–that this nation, under God shall have a new birth of freedom–and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. November 19, 1863
An interesting historical footnote concerning this address is that Abraham Lincoln did not deliver the Gettysburg address. The principal speaker at Gettysburg was Dr. Edward Everett, the President of Harvard College, who spoke for more than two hours while Lincoln delivered his “Remarks by the President of the United States” in 10 sentences, comprised of 270 very carefully selected words.
Winston Churchill recognized the power of short words but also suggested that “old words are best”. The reason Churchill was devoted to the use of old words was their value in serving as an effective means of communication. Older words have the ring of familiarity and lead to clarity of understanding.
(6) Bilingual: Technical & Lay – It is necessary for the skilled attorney to be conversant with both the technical language to be used in the case and the layman’s translation which the jury will need. However, the attorney must overcome the desire to show off his or her technical knowledge and remember the maxim to “communicate simply” with jurors.
While we often encounter technical language in product liability, toxic tort and many other types of cases, the place where technical language occurs most frequently for the personal injury lawyer is in the medical field. In Marshall Hout’s excellent treatise, Lawyers Guide to Medical Proof, he gives two wonderful examples of medical jargon at its worst:
In a wrongful death case the plaintiff’s lawyer had to call the doctor who signed the death certificate. After the preliminaries, the exchange on the substantive question of death went:
Q. Now, Doctor, can you, in popular language, tell us what the cause of this man’s death was?
A. (Uncertain) You mean, I presume, the causa mortis?
Q. (Pleading) Well, Sir, it was my hope that you could put it in common down-to-earth, every-day, lay language that we could all understand. Can you please tell us what caused this man to die?
A. (Supercilious and condescending) Well, it will be difficult but, I can try. The cause of death was cerebral edema, caused by thrombosis, or perhaps embolism, secondary to generalized arteriosclerotic brain disease moderate to severe, secondary to a subphrenic abscess, following a cholecystectomy.
A JUROR: Well, I will be damned!
THE COURT: Sir, I will not tolerate the use of such language in my courtroom and must caution you against any further outburst. Normally, I would find you in contempt and levy a fine. However, since you have done nothing more than give audible expression to a thought which wells up in the court’s own mind, I cannot find it in my heart to punish you.
While this was an actual example from a trial, the poet, as is so often true, captures the essence of the problem in the following doggerel:
With an erudite profundity
And subtle cogitabundity,
The medical expert testifies in Court;
Explains with ponderosity
And keen profound verbosity,
The intricate nature of the plaintiff’s tort.
Discoursing on pathology,
Anatomy, biology,
Opines with patient’s orbit suffered thus:
Contusions of integuments
With ecchymosed embellishments,
And bloody extravasation forming pus.
A state of tumerosity
Producing lacrimosity,
Abrasion of the cuticle severe;
All diagnosed externally,
Although, he feared internally
Sclerotic inflammation might appear.
The jury sits confused, amazed,
By all this pleonasm dazed,
Unable to conceive a single word;
All awed, they think with bated breaths
The plaintiff dies a thousand deaths.
What agony, what pain he has endured!
Said then the counsel for defense,
Devoid of garrulous eloquence,
Would I be correctly quoting you
To say his eye was black and blue?
To this, the doctor meekly answered,
“Yes”.
(7) Use of Jargon – In litigation we encounter the necessity to explain to jurors the nuances of numerous professions, occupations, product designs, medical procedures and innumerable other areas in which jargon has been developed by members of the group to communicate with each other. As a general proposition, it is best to avoid the jargon of a particular field in communicating with a jury simply because such jargon requires additional explanations. It is more efficient in terms of communication to identify lay terms which are synonymous with the jargon and use those lay terms in communicating with the jury.
(8) Slang – As a general proposition it is better to avoid slang in courtroom communications. Some slang is offensive, has double entendre meanings and creates images which may not be consistent with the goals of the speaker. It is generally better to use simple language which will more clearly convey to your listeners precisely your message without running the risk of offending your listeners.
(9) Vernacular or Colloquialism – Using the vernacular which is peculiar to a region may be helpful in communicating to the jurors from that region, however, the attorney should attempt to use vernacular only when it can be done so comfortably and with a clear understanding of all the possible ramifications of the vernacular. A native, hometown advocate can communicate effectively with native, hometown jurors by using the vernacular of the village. However, an outsider attempting to ingratiate himself to jurors through the use of local vernacular runs the risk of being spotted as a manipulator, and not having a clear understanding of all of the possible ramifications of the vernacular term. The simple suggestion is to avoid the vernacular unless it is clearly understood and comfortably used by the attorney.
(10) Language of the Case – If we are to communicate simply and successfully with jurors, the most effective way is to speak to them in their own language. Each case has its own peculiarities with respect to the language describing the events and the resulting damages.
As you discuss the case with the jury on voir dire examination, listen very carefully to the specific language which the jurors use in talking about the events, this type of injury or any other relevant parts of your theme.
One of the many valued services which focus groups can perform is to educate the attorney with respect to the language of the case. The technique is to give the focus group a simple, bland description of the events of the case and encourage them to talk about the case in terms of the questions which arise in their minds; their opinions about this type of litigation generally and this case specifically, and whatever other focuses you are attempting to achieve from the group. However, listen very carefully to the phrases and terminology which the focus group members use in talking about your case. This will give you the language which laymen use, understand and accept in discussing this case. You then adapt that language into your voir dire examination, opening statement, witness examination and summation as a vital part of presenting your messages and themes to the jury in simple, communicable, lay language.
b. Analogies – Analogies are an extension of the two other comparative tools, metaphors and similes. The analogy, while being used to communicate a point clearly by comparison, stretches further than the metaphor or simile. Analogies often require more lengthy storytelling than a simple metaphor or simile but the end result is that the analogy most often will be the most effective means of clearly communicating a point to the jury.
It is suggested that analogies from everyday life and from the national press make excellent realms of comparison to the value of human life or the experiencing of physical pain and suffering and mental anguish. Analogies should be assimilated to the particular jury to which they are being argued. There are very effective sports analogies, art analogies and other types of analogies which can be used for comparative purposes. Consider the following analogy that was used in arguing damages for the death of a child:
What is this child’s life worth in our community? Counsel says 4 million dollars is too much money. However, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a society in which 82.5 million dollars was recently paid for paint on canvas. Why? Because it was the work of a master, Van Gogh. Ladies and gentlemen, if paint on canvas is worth 82.5 million dollars in our society because it is a masterpiece, is the greatest creation of the greatest master of them all, God’s creation of a child, worth at least 4 million dollars in our community?
Sports analogies are particularly effective today because of the extremely inflated salaries which sports stars are receiving for playing children’s games. Consider the following which was used in an argument shortly after the Spinks-Tyson fight:
Ladies and Gentlemen, what is the reasonable sum of money to compensate this young man for the mental anguish which he will endure every day of his life for the next forty-five years as he sits confined as a prisoner in his wheelchair as result of the negligence of this defendant. Is 10 million dollars enough? We ask you to judge this by the standards of our society. We live in a society in which 23 million dollars was recently split by two men, Spinks and Tyson for 91 second in a boxing ring. If 91 seconds of dancing and punching each other is worth 23 million dollars can 10 million dollars even begin to compensate this plaintiff for 45 years of mental anguish?
Johnny Carson said that he had the world’s easiest job. He simply read the paper each day and his monologue leapt out at him. The same is true with the use of analogies in summation. It is suggested that counsel should maintain a summation notebook that is filled with anecdotes and matters of common public knowledge. Use these as a basis of establishing societal standards from which to argue the reasonable value to compensate for catastrophic injury or death.
Analogies may be used to explain a point of law. For example, in an effort to explain the law of non-delegable duties in order to make the jury understand why a department store owner could not abrogate its responsibility to maintain its elevator in safe working condition by simply signing a contract with an elevator maintenance company, the following analogy was used:
Simpson’s department store owes a direct duty to its customers to maintain the elevators in safe working condition. They would have you believe that they met their obligation by simply signing a contract with an elevator maintenance company. However, the law says differently. The law says that Simpson’s cannot delegate their responsibility to the elevator company. Many of you may remember the sign that President Harry S. Truman had on his desk “The Buck Stops Here”. The law places that same sign on the desk of Simpson Department Store and tells them that “the buck stops here” when it comes to providing safe elevators for their customers.
The analogy is also a helpful tool in arguing the 5% disability case:
Counsel says that the plaintiff is suffering only a 5% disability. However, the 5% figure is meaningless because the defendant did not inflict an injury solely on the plaintiff’s low back. The 5% figure is meaningless when an injury occurs which afflicts physical pain and suffering and mental anguish on a worker to such an extent that it incapacitates him from performing the usual tasks of his job. The 5% figure is meaningless when we consider the effect of the back injury on the whole man. The 5% figure is meaningless when we consider where the 5% is located in the body. Mr. Jones is injured at L4-L5, the work horse part of the back; the portion of the body that is used for bending, lifting, stooping, and the many other tasks that Mr. Jones had to perform on a daily basis.
What is a 5% disability? The 5% figure is meaningful only when we consider the effect of the 5% on Mr. Jones’ overall performance. For example, look at the clock on the courthouse wall. If that clock malfunctioned to the extent of 5% beginning now, by the time we return to this courtroom tomorrow at this same time, the clock would be 72 minutes behind; two days from now would be 144 minutes behind; three days 216 minutes, and then four days, the clock would be almost 5 hours behind. Mr. Jones experiences the same type of difficulty as he attempts to return to work and perform his usual tasks and finds that he gets further and further behind every day. The 5% figure is meaningless.
The same type of analogy can be used while demonstrating a sense of humor by good-naturedly poking a bit of fun at the defense counsel, in this fashion:
Counsel ridicules the plaintiff’s claim of a 5% disability to the body as a whole. However, if counsel takes his wife and two children on a boat in Galveston Bay this weekend and his wife spots a hole in the bottom of the boat with water pouring in, I have to wonder if counsel would tell his wife, “Don’t worry, dear. That hole only represents a 5% disability to the boat as a whole.”
Just like the water rushing in to sink the boat, the physical pain and mental anguish which Mr. Jones is experiencing on a daily basis is sinking him financially, is sinking him physically and is sinking him emotionally. Only you as a jury can throw him the life buoy before he drowns in the disabilities which have resulted to him from his injury.
A variation on this theme is the small leak in a chemical plant; a chip in the heel of a mighty race horse; a small tear in a priceless da Vinci painting; a small cigarette burn in the new dress; a thorn in the paw of the mighty lion which incapacitates it; the small leak on the nuclear plant which represents only a 5% malfunction of the structure as a whole; a rotator cuff injury to Nolan Ryan’s pitching arm, only 5% disability to the body as a whole, or, one which is easy for our jurors to identify with, a pebble in the shoe which annoys and distracts you throughout every minute of every day when you’re on your feet, whether working or playing.
In a case involving the cut tendon and ligament, the analogy is to a puppet which breaks the string that controls the use of its arm. Analogy is drawn to the manner in which tendons, ligaments and muscles work like the string of a puppet. However, with the puppet you simply have to replace the string, but the tendon or ligament which limits motion cannot be repaired but will develop scar tissue which will render the disability permanent.
In death cases, the effective analogies are to the incredible amounts of money which we spend in our society to protect or save the life of one person. We could have flown to the moon long before Neil Armstrong landed, and at much less expense, if we had been willing to sacrifice the lives of two astronauts by leaving them there. Landing on the moon was the simple task compared to the Herculean problems involved in taking off from the moon and docking with an orbiting spacecraft for the return trip. However, the billions of dollars involved to return men safely from the moon were never questioned, and the thought of leaving them there was never considered. Why, because of the huge value which we place on human life in our society.
One of the best sources for analogies in a death case is the daily newspaper. Analogies of this type should be constantly updated since, to the credit of our society, we frequently spend large sums of money in life-saving measures.
c. Metaphors – The metaphor has been defined as “the application of a word or phrase to an object or concept it does not literally denote, in order to suggest comparison with another object or concept.” An example of a common metaphor is “a mighty fortress is our God.” Counsel effectively using a metaphor can rely on a familiar story or anecdote. Biblical stories make excellent metaphors. The effective metaphor is easy for the jury to understand. The jury is not threatened when listening to a metaphoric story.
d. Similes – The use of simile is a comparison of one thing to another. Martin Luther King used similes in the following powerful phrase from his “I Have a Dream” speech: “No, we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like water and righteous like a mighty stream.”
For example, in the trial of a case involving 15 defibrillation of a nine month old infant, the term defibrillation is a totally meaningless, innocuous and non-inspiring term which conveys absolutely no message with respect to the agony which the child endured. However, when an expert witness described defibrillation as being “just like electrocution”, this predicated an emotional right brain appeal during summation based upon sending an electric shock through the body of a 38 pound infant with sufficient force to stop the heart from beating. Thus, electrocution became a highly electrifying catch phrase replacing the innocuous term, defibrillation.
Another example of use of simile in a product liability case is the following: “This defendant is like the criminal who killed his parents and pled for mercy because he was an orphan.”