Transcript:
Adam Bloomberg:
Every successful trial outcome begins with a compelling story, but that story only succeeds if jurors understand it, believe it, and trust it. I'm Adam Bloomberg, Senior Client Success Advisor here at IMS Legal Strategies.
Today we're honored to be joined by Maggie Mendenhall Casey, who is the Deputy General Counsel for the City of Chicago, where she oversees a wide range of complex litigation matters. Maggie is the 2025 recipient of the Earl B. Dickerson Award, which honors lawyers and judges whose careers reflect a deep commitment to justice and public service.
She's going to share her perspective on what it takes to communicate effectively in the courtroom, expert witnesses, trial testimony, and the use of analogies. If you enjoy this content, please like and follow us here on LinkedIn or over on our YouTube channel.
Leading today's conversation is my colleague, Dr. Keith Pounds, Senior Jury Consultant here at IMS. Keith, handing it over to you.
Keith Pounds:
Thanks, Adam. Good morning, Maggie.
Maggie Mendenhall Casey:
Morning, Keith. It's good to speak with you today.
Keith:
Thanks for taking the time to speak with us.
Maggie:
Of course. You know, I always love a conversation with you, Keith.
Keith:
Well, I want to give a little further introduction. You lead the City of Chicago's Torts Department, where you oversee up to 100 attorneys who work with outside counsel on really high-exposure, complex cases. You manage a lot of different kinds of cases. And, you know, while IMS works on a wide variety of cases on all sides, from patent litigation to contract matters, we certainly do a lot of work together on torts.
And so, I like to drill down on some of your perspective and experience working on so many different kinds of complex cases.
Maggie:
Sounds good to me.
Keith:
Excellent.
You've handled matters that are involved with high public scrutiny and really have a lot of complex factual issues. When a case becomes difficult for jurors to follow, where do you think attorneys most often lose the narrative when the case becomes too complex for the jury to follow?
Maggie:
The attorneys really have lost the narrative in that they're not speaking to the jury like they're at the bar. When I started off in my career as a baby attorney, a prosecutor, my mentor, who's still involved in my career to this day, told me that in particular, when you're giving that opening statement, when you're presenting your closing argument, it should be done in a way where the jurors feel like they're right next to you at the bar and you're explaining what happened in one of your cases.
Or you're around the family table for Thanksgiving or Christmas and you're letting them know what's happening at work. It should be conversational. It should be clear. And when you're not being clear, you're not doing your job because your job is to meet the jurors where they're at. They're not supposed to meet you where you're at. So you have to keep it clear and conversational no matter how complex the topic is.
Keith:
You know, it's really fascinating. And, you know, sort of thinking about how juries get to know more about a case, they really rely so much on witnesses. When jurors are evaluating a witness, what do you think that they are subconsciously looking for just beyond the substance of the testimony of the witness?
Maggie:
Beyond the testimony of the witness, the jurors are considering, first of all, do I believe that this person is credible? And second, do I like that person? And really in that order of importance. So, credibility is everything when it comes to witnesses, especially our expert witnesses. They're being hired and they're here to give their opinion. If they don't believe this person, they don't think this person is credible, they're not going to believe their opinion.
And so, a lot of that comes to the lawyers and when they're working with their experts in finding a way to, if at all possible, get to the opinion that's helpful for your side, but still in a way that the expert feels comfortable. If you start pushing your expert too hard, it's going to come across with the jury.
They're going to respond to those questions on cross-examination, and it's going to come across that they don't believe in what they're saying. If they don't believe it, the jurors won't. So, making sure, first of all, that they come across as being credible and that they're likable. And by being likable, the jurors don't want someone that's speaking to them on high. They want someone, again, that can be conversational, personable, and is going to take the time to break down a complex topic for them.
Keith:
Yeah, that's fascinating. And from your perspective, what sort of communication or other kinds of behaviors just really, really hurt a witness's credibility with the jury? A big communication issue.
Maggie:
And I don't know if you classify this as a communication issue, but I'm going to classify it as such, so here we go. Not admitting to the bad facts. Not just being accountable for the evidence that's in the record that you can't refute.
So, if you take it even to a simple auto accident case and there's a dispute over, "Well, I'm not going to say that I ran the red light." "Oh, I rolled it," or "I went through it." Just say that you didn't stop for the red light, right, and move along. The more that you fight over things that are very clear in the record, the less credibility you have and you bring attention to the bad facts. So, I think that's really important in terms of presentation. Rather than being pedantic and arguing over phrasing, admit to the evidence that's in the record and really focus on the things that are at issue.
Keith:
And I think that's so important. Really embracing and accepting what is actually there is a way to enhance your credibility, even if it maybe doesn't on a surface glance feel good or look good to that witness themselves. Taking account of that is certainly very important for a jury.
But, you know, sort of thinking back to when a jury meets a case for the first time, it really is through the opening statements that the attorneys give. And really, the opening statements can shape everything that follows in the minds of a jury. What do you think makes an opening statement particularly effective?
Maggie:
A great theme is number one. A great theme. And starting off your presentation with that great theme, the first thing, in my opinion, that you should be saying to the jurors after you introduce yourself is whatever you want the jurors to go back to the verdict room and be thinking about. So, starting off with the open, throughout your witnesses, and then obviously with the close, the theme is important. Credibility from the inception is important.
So, for the plaintiff, that means don't fail to front things, don't paint a rosy picture, which then you give the defense opportunity to come up and make you seem dishonest from the inception, going back to that credibility theme. And for the defense, that means don't promise that the jurors are going to hear evidence that just simply isn't going to come in. So don't overpromise. Make sure you stay to your theme and be concise while highlighting the important and good evidence for you.
Keith:
I really like what you said about one of the first things you say in your opening is what you want that jury to go back and the first thing out of their mouth in deliberations. That actually is a great segue to my next question, which is the closing arguments. This is, you know, the jury hears the closing arguments. It might be days or even weeks after the case began. What do you think makes a good closing argument very memorable for a jury?
Maggie:
So, this might be a hot take. I'll talk about first what I think does not make a memorable closing argument. I personally can't stand the "thank you for your service." And this is, you've been here for two weeks and this is the highest thing that you can do within our country. Just get to it. Like, they don't want their time to be wasted, in my opinion, the way that I was trained up and I still stick to it to this day, where appropriate, start out with something that's going to capture their attention and bring them into your closing argument.
Another way to keep attention, which I think is very important, is obviously the use of demonstratives, and I have seen be particularly effective to bring back some of the old-school modes of technology. So, everybody's on PowerPoint now. In my opinion, a more effective closing argument is when you are pivoting from PowerPoint to an Elmo projector to a whiteboard, and you're using all, at least two, if not three of them, to emphasize different points throughout your closing to capture the jury's attention and keep it as concise as possible.
Lawyers love to talk. I love to hear myself talk, but keep in mind the jurors don't. So be respectful of their time.
Keith:
You know, someone who truly tracks how juror attitudes change and how they process information, make decisions, I can absolutely agree with you. Getting the message in multiple modes can be so effective in making it memorable for the jury.
And that makes me think about when we have these complex cases, counsel will often look for a really powerful courtroom analogy to use. What, in your mind, separates a good analogy as opposed to one that might feel forced or confusing or even overly dramatic for a case?
Maggie:
A good analogy shouldn't be clunky. The idea is that you're supposed to be simplifying a concept, not making it more complex, so it does need to be simple.
I think they're particularly effective when it is an analogy that is native to your personality, something that you would use in conversation, or if not, that includes some sort of anecdote that talks about something that is natural for you. So, if your mom, something about that, if you have, I don't know, a bunch of nieces and nephews, something about that. So, it comes across as genuine, shows your personality, and also makes you feel likable with the jury, while at the same time helping to simplify things.
I think something that's obvious, but I'll state the obvious, is that with analogies, you need to be careful to avoid analogies that are touching on the areas of race, gender, sexuality. You don't want to be, and you should not be, heavy-handed with those. You should not be using analogies to really make jokes in these serious cases. They're heavy cases. The jurors' natural laughter will come at some points, but it typically is not at the hands of an analogy. So be careful. They are useful, but you do need to be careful about when you deploy analogies, in my opinion.
Keith:
That's great. And, you know, it makes me think too about the importance of testing an analogy. And, you know, I know that you are a big believer in mock jury research, different types, and I would just like to kind of hear your perspective on where you think mock jury and jury research is helpful in how you manage your portfolio of cases.
Maggie:
Mock jury research is invaluable for me because it really takes out the guesswork, right? So, if you're not doing a mock jury, what are you doing? You're going and looking at the comps, going to whatever jurisdiction that your case is in, and seeing what the similar verdicts and settlements have been. But to be honest with you, settlements aren't as helpful for figuring out, in my opinion, the true value of a case.
Once you start getting into the realm of complex, high-exposure, ultra-high-exposure cases, there are fewer of those comps, and sometimes, like, none that are directly on point. And so, you're guessing about a case that has tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure to your client. When you're dealing with those high-exposure cases, I personally think you're doing your client a disservice if you are approaching the trial date and a mock has not been done.
I really like that it takes that guesswork out, and not only that, it also provides some guidance as to what your strategy can or how your strategy can be improved, what can be shaken up. I definitely have used my juries to say, "OK, I need to change my staffing on my case, maybe bring somebody else in, maybe replace a team in total." It's been very helpful for that. And it also is helpful to know “what are the real issues that the jurors are focusing on” and “what do we need to make sure we're extremely strong on in motion in limine to help make sure we have a successful case.”
Keith:
And that's great to hear from the perspective of a jury consultant. We do, you know, a lot of mock jury research and they're big believers in being able to provide that kind of information for our clients. And that's great to hear that you're using it in that way.
And, you know, really as sort of thinking as we wrap up here, I want to ask you one final question. And that's really, you know, what is on your mind right now for the future of litigation just in general? Curious to know what's been on my mind the past few years is damages.
Maggie:
So, liability is definitely the more, I think, appealing aspect of litigating a case and trial case. And everybody loves to walk away with either the win or the win, whether that be guilty or not guilty. But I like thinking about the damages. There's a big difference between being found liable for something and being found liable for $1 million, $5 million, $10 million, and $80 million. Those are just two different universes.
So, I've been thinking a lot about how to convey to jurors the value of a dollar, the value of $1 million, and how to say that an amount might be a bit too high. So that's really what I've been focusing on, damages. And it kind of is the new area for this particular practice.
Keith:
Yeah. And I really appreciate that perspective. And I really appreciate your time. Maggie, thanks so much for sitting down with me and having this conversation.
Maggie:
Really, I enjoyed it.
Keith:
Adam, back to you.
Adam:
Thank you, Keith, and thank you, Maggie. And if you're still here, you've made it. Thanks for sticking around again. If you enjoy this content, please like and follow us here on LinkedIn or over on our YouTube channel. Until next time.
