Jurors bring their own beliefs, experiences, and instincts into the deliberation room, shaping how they interpret every argument and piece of evidence. These varied perspectives become especially important in deliberations, where jurors debate, reinterpret, and often sway each other’s views in ways that meaningfully affect verdicts. DOAR’s jury research exercises reveal these decision-making patterns early, giving trial teams a precise and actionable understanding of how real people are likely to react to their case as it unfolds.
Through focus groups, mock trials, surveys, and customized research events, we identify which themes and arguments create clarity, which generate resistance or confusion, and what emotional or cognitive drivers influence juror engagement. This allows us to map the underlying reasoning that shapes juror preferences—and uncover the factors that truly guide deliberations and verdict voting.
The insights gained from this process guide the development of a persuasive narrative grounded in how jurors actually think, ensuring that real-world reactions, not assumptions, inform trial strategy. By understanding the “why” behind juror responses, trial teams gain a decisive strategic advantage and can enter the courtroom with greater confidence and precision.
A Winning Strategy
For more than 35 years, DOAR has been the go-to resource for jury research by leading trial attorneys across the nation. We know how to uncover critical insight that can lead jurors from one side to the other.
A winning strategy involves more than a recitation of the facts; it requires learning which facts matter most to jurors and knowing the most effective way to present them.
Roundtable panels offer a structured, discussion-driven format to explore complex issues in depth. Participants react to discrete segments of the case, helping trial teams identify subtle concerns, test messaging variations, and uncover nuances that might not surface in broader research formats.
Our simulated arbitrations and bench trials reveal how experienced arbitrators or retired judges interpret key issues. Their assessments validate or challenge trial strategy and clarify how decision-makers may weigh testimony, evidence, and legal arguments in non-jury settings.
Targeted online surveys gather empirical data from a wider pool of jury-eligible respondents. These studies measure attitudes, biases, and broader social views to inform jury selection and case framing, especially in matters shaped by cultural or industry-specific perceptions.