When initial focus groups showed jurors reluctant to hold police accountable, one strategic pivot changed everything.
Picture this: Your client's family is seeking justice after a fatal police shooting. You're passionate about the case, you believe in your client, but there's one major problem—every focus group shows the same troubling pattern.
Jurors are hesitant to second-guess police officers. They're reluctant to allocate liability. They default to trusting law enforcement judgment, even when the evidence suggests otherwise.
Sound familiar? You're not alone.
Recently, RLC was called upon to help a plaintiff's attorney facing exactly this scenario in a challenging police shooting case headed for trial. What happened next demonstrates why the right jury research can transform even the most difficult cases.
Through multiple rounds of strategic jury research, our team tested various arguments and approaches with real citizen jurors. What we discovered changed everything.
The game-changer wasn't what we expected.
While jurors struggled with the concept of second-guessing police judgment in general, they responded powerfully to one specific, concrete detail: a non-lethal force option had been proposed but not used by the officers in question.
This wasn't theoretical. It wasn't asking jurors to play Monday morning quarterback. It was a clear, documented alternative that gave jurors permission to hold the officers accountable.
According to the plaintiff's attorney:
"The multiple rounds of RLC jury research were instrumental in preparing for trial and building the strongest possible case for my client and his family."
But here's where it gets even better:
"This key revelation from the RLC team led me to completely restructure my case and arguments. This insight played a critical role in securing a major win at the mediation table."
One strategic pivot. One research-driven insight. One transformative outcome.
Even the most experienced trial attorneys can't predict how real jurors will respond to complex arguments. What sounds compelling in your office might fall flat in the jury room. What seems like a weakness might actually be your greatest strength.
This case perfectly illustrates a crucial principle: Jurors need concrete reasons to overcome their natural biases. Asking them to "second-guess police judgment" feels abstract and uncomfortable. Showing them a specific, unused non-lethal option gives them something tangible to evaluate. At RLC, we refer to this as an “offramp” that enables jurors to step outside of their core framework, and accept a new perspective that compliments their core values and beliefs.
Without systematic jury research, this attorney might have spent months preparing arguments that wouldn't resonate. Instead, he was able to completely restructure his case around the insight that would actually move jurors.
Here's the reality: In high-stakes litigation, you can't afford to guess.
Research from real citizen jurors, combined with strategic sessions with RLC, can uncover unforeseen strengths and weaknesses that determine whether you walk away with nothing—or secure the multi-million dollar settlement your client deserves.
Don't let another case go to trial without knowing how real jurors will respond to your arguments. Don't settle for less because you missed the insight that could transform your case.
Ready to discover what you don't know you don't know?
Contact RLC today to discuss how strategic jury research can give you the competitive advantage that turns challenging cases into winning outcomes.
Because in litigation, the most expensive research is the research you didn't do.