The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is nearing its final stage as closing arguments begin before the jury. The trial is splitting America between those who believe he is a cold-blooded vigilante, and those who see a brave young man defending life and property.
Inside Edition spoke with jury expert Dr. Rachel York Colangelo, who said that Rittenhouse’s body language could influence how the jury feels about his guilt. He yawned no less than five times during the prosecution’s closing arguments:
Magna Legal Services’ Dr. Daniel Wolfe spoke with The Recorder for their analysis titled “Juries Return to Courts As The Pandemic Drags On. Who is Serving—And How Are They Voting?” which published on October 4, 2021. You can access the full article on Law.com.
In many parts of the country, courts are getting jury trials back into full swing. Still, even at this stage of the pandemic, the effects of COVID-19 on trials go further than socially distanced jury boxes and judges behind sneeze guards.
Jury consultants and litigators across the country say the coronavirus is continuing to shape who makes it onto juries and how they are voting.
Daniel Wolfe, J.D., Ph.D.
Senior Director of Jury Consulting
Magna Legal Services
Despite the delta variant causing a surge of cases among both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals, some jury consultants say the majority of potential jurors appear comfortable serving.
Daniel Wolfe, senior director of jury consulting for Magna Legal Services, suspects some people just want to get back to a sense of normalcy, and jury duty feels like one way to do that.
He said jurors seem to find peace and comfort from the fact that “people weren’t still walking around on broken glass and pins and needles around the pandemic, that they were just like, ‘Let’s go, folks, we’re ready to get back to doing things. We’ve got business to do.’”
“Some people just want to get back to a sense of normalcy, and jury duty feels like one way to do that.“
Magna’s Daniel Wolfe said certain populations of people are more reluctant to come in for jury duty. “Those who identify as Democrat are more reluctant, and you can see this because the narrative around the pandemic has become so politicized.”
He has also found that millennials, those under the age of 35, are also less likely to appear for jury duty. People who consider themselves more at risk for COVID-19 don’t show up or raise hardships and get excused, he said. In one case, Wolfe said, they sent out 300 juror questionnaires and only got back 45.
In a case in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Wolfe said four out of the 70 prospective jurors were teachers, and every one of them also expressed that their schools were short-staffed and their bosses told them they needed to be in class.
“Those who identify as Democrat are more reluctant, and you can see this because the narrative around the pandemic has become so politicized.”
In that case, the judge said, “the school districts are big, they can find people, it’s not a hardship,” he said. Ultimately, he only excluded 10 out of 70 jurors for hardship. He saw a judge respond to the same arguments in a different case by saying, “My wife’s a teacher, so I get it,” and excused them.
Wolfe has seen essential workers, especially health care workers, raise similar hardships. “I’ve seen a couple of times where you could just see the horrible angst on these people’s faces,” he said. “They’re so overwrought and exhausted, and the judge was just like, ‘You don’t need to be here. You’ve got better things to do.’ So it was really more sympathy than it was hardship. It was purely just a compassionate decision by the judges.”
“I’ve seen a couple of times where you could just see the horrible angst on these people’s faces. They’re so overwrought and exhausted, and the judge was just like, ‘You don’t need to be here. You’ve got better things to do.’ So it was really more sympathy than it was hardship. It was purely just a compassionate decision by the judges.”
Besides professional caretakers, people who tell judges that they are caring for someone who is sick with COVID-19 or still recovering almost always get excused, he said.
Wolfe said the older, more conservative juries result in more defense verdicts in certain types of cases. Wolfe believes the national narrative of personal responsibility that has only heightened during the pandemic has also contributed to less plaintiff-friendly juries.
“We’ve seen juries be much more harsh and critical of plaintiffs than they were pre-pandemic, particularly where there’s a contributory negligence claim, because they’re just holding these individuals to a higher standard, more responsibility,”
The other factor driving defense verdicts, he said, is because most of the cases that have been tried have been three days or less. Once larger, more catastrophic injury cases go to trial, he expects to see a reversal of that trend. “Whether it goes back to normal—whatever that is—I don’t know. But we’re going to see the pendulum swing back a bit because of that,” he said.
The readers of the ALM publication National Law Journal, The New York Law Journal, The Legal Intelligencer, Texas Lawyer and The Recorder, have recently announced the winners of the magazine’s 2021 “Best Of” Awards, and Magna Legal Services set a precedent, winning multiple categories across each publication.
The “Best Of” readers ranking awards recognize the top legal products and service providers. Lawyers and firm administrators vote each year to select winners. In 2021 alone, Magna LS won an astounding 67 categories in five magazines, including Demonstrative Evidence Provider, Remote Trial Services, Jury Consultants, Court Reporters/Depositions and Language Services. Many of the winning services are used by law firms, insurance professionals and in-house counsel at Fortune 100 companies.
“Magna Legal Services’ historical wins this year speaks to the onslaught of great services like JuryConfirm, JuryEvaluator, ClaimScout and Magna LitigationVision as well as our extraordinarily talented staff,” said Peter Hecht, Founder and Executive Vice President of Magna Legal Services.
“This robust recognition reflects the strength and diversity of the Magna LS product lineup,” said Keri Yaeger, Vice President of Excess/Umbrella Underwriting, AmeriTrust Group. “The ability to bundle services from Discovery to Trial benefits us not only from a cost perspective, but also gives us a go-to partner that we trust to provide quality work across many different facets of our claims.”
To determine award winners, readers of the various ALM publications take the time to log into an online survey and select from a wide variety of industry leading litigation support companies. Winners are selected once voting is closed and announced shortly thereafter by the respective magazine in a special issue.
“It is always so gratifying to see our clients take the time to vote for us,” said Jessica Gimbel Carnes, Senior Vice President of Sales, Magna Legal Services. “Casting their votes, while not a burden, does take some time and effort so that says a lot about the reader recognition too.”
The “Best Of” category for Jury Consultant was won by Magna LS in five separate publications. Magna Legal Services’ jury consultants are engaged for jury selection, witness communication training, focus groups, mock trials and damages assessment.
“Jury research is an essential tool when preparing a high value case. It provides the client with greater visibility into what to expect and it is an amazing tool to assist the trial team with developing themes and stories and to assess potential value,” said Richard Fabian, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Strategy Officer, Riverstone.
Magna Legal Services Enhances Services With the Resources of O’Brien & Levine Court Reporting SolutionsPHILADELPHIA, Aug. 23, 2021—Magna Legal Services (Magna LS), an ALM award-winning court reporting, medical record retrieval and litigation consulting industry leader, and O’Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions announced today the combination of their firms. Boston-based O’Brien & Levine has been independently operated by President Kenneth Zais since 1992. The two companies combined operations on August 18, 2021.
With more than 500 employees, 3,500 court reporters, 5,000 interpreters and 40 litigation consultants in 22 locations across the U.S., together Magna LS and O’Brien & Levine will be one of the largest litigation support and consulting firms both in size and services offered.
O’Brien & Levine clients will now have access to medical record retrieval, document translation, interpreting, social media surveillance, visual communications, and jury consulting services.
“Our firms’ complementary industry strengths, similar collaborative culture and focus on exceptional service will be valued by clients in New England and throughout the U.S.,” said O’Brien & Levine President Kenny Zais. “We will continue to introduce and support real-world technologies for litigation practices, such as virtual depositions and paperless exhibits, that have now become a mainstay. I am enthusiastic about the next chapter for our clients, court reporters and team.”
Founding Partner and Executive Vice President of Sales at Magna LS, Peter Hecht, added, “We have tremendous respect for O’Brien & Levine and are excited that our clients will be able to take advantage of their services in New England. We are equally excited about the opportunity to offer new, powerful litigation support tools for their clients.” The merging of these companies will further enable Magna LS to continue to be the industry leader in court reporting nationwide.
Magna Legal Services CEO Mark Williams said, “We are delighted to welcome the O’Brien & Levine team to the Magna family. Kenny and his team built a well-known, respected brand over 30 successful years. Together, our capabilities will expand opportunities to shape the future of court reporting.”
Article by Taylor Lyden
Originally published in MA LAWYERS WEEKLY 2020
In this new age of regional lockdowns and social distancing, counsel have had to adjust trial preparation significantly. While some jurisdictions are slowly opening and attempting to safely hold trials, many places are still in the early phases of re-opening and still prohibiting gatherings of more than 25 people or requiring quarantine upon entering from certain states. This has forced people to consider alternate forms of jury research to stay on track for trials scheduled for this fall and winter. Enter online, or virtual, jury research. For those unaccustomed to online jury research, the prospect can be daunting, to say the least. You may worry that you won’t get a representative jury, jurors won’t pay close attention, they’ll struggle with technology, or they won’t be able to have meaningful discussions of the evidence. As a leader in the field of jury research, Magna pioneered virtual jury research. For over a decade Magna Legal Services has utilized a virtual courtroom for online jury research in addition to the more traditional in-person mock trials, and our experience has taught us that online deliberations are every bit as robust and effective as their in-person counterparts. With thousands of mock trials to draw from, below are three reasons why we have concluded that there is no substantive difference between virtual and in-person deliberations for jury research.
Conclusion
In sum, as more and more attorneys and parties find themselves faced with virtual jury selection, trial, and/or deliberations, we look back at our experience over the years to help allay any fears that online deliberations are less effective than those in-person. While there are some unavoidable limitations, we feel that benefits of online deliberations can, in many instances, outweigh any drawbacks. In other words, you can rest assured that jurors will still take your case seriously, carefully evaluate evidence and arguments, and have thoughtful and meaningful deliberations to a verdict. Additionally, if you find yourself headed back into the courtroom (virtually or in person), remember that online mock trials and jury research can be a great and cost-effective way to test the waters and may just help draw open the curtains on a key to your case that you may have missed.
Click to Read More About:
PUBLISHED IN MA LAWYERS WEEKLY FEB. 2021
By: Courtney Collins and Meagan Donohoe
The legal profession’s transition into the online sphere in 2020 was abrupt, disconcerting, and sometimes painful, but it is finally official: we continue forward, but [mostly] virtually. Hearings, mediations, arbitrations, and most commonly, depositions have vacated their more traditional law office settings and imposing courtrooms in favor of bedrooms, closets, and even vehicles. Mercifully, after months of forced practice, it’s safe to say that most of us in the legal profession have a pretty firm grasp on the technological side of things (even if we still forget to unmute ourselves from time to time). But while everyone was focused on learning the online platforms and adjusting to the new reality, something was lost, and that was decorum. Although there is a certain comfort associated with appearing for a deposition from home—which can alleviate some anxiety a witness might experience in a less familiar and more formal setting—the pendulum seems to have swung wildly in the other direction over the past several months, with some virtual depositions looking more like a cocktail party of friends and acquaintances. Legal proceedings should not fall prey to the new world of t-shirts and flip flops and other work from home habits.
It is critical that witnesses are afforded the same level of support and guidance from counsel while appearing virtually as they would be if they were present in the same room. In fact, in some ways, these witnesses require an even higher degree of support to be successful. Sprinkled with cautionary tales from real depositions over the past nine months, this article offers tips and best practices for supporting your witnesses in a virtual world.
It’s no secret that many deponents, especially first-timers, can have a difficult time shedding those pesky deposition-jitters. Although being deposed from a familiar place affords a certain sense of security for many, there is also a reassurance that comes with sitting in arms reach of your attorney at that long wooden table that is just not attainable in the online space. The witness knows counsel is on her side when she is right next to her—everyone is “in it together.” However, just because you can’t be physically present for your witness, doesn’t mean that you can’t provide that same level of support in other ways; it simply must be more intentional.
All witnesses, especially inexperienced ones, like to feel safe and protected – and that can only happen virtually with a present and attentive counsel. Far too often we see defending attorneys fail to appear on camera, leaving their witness feeling alone and exposed in the virtual space. Of course, no one can control if their computer decides to act up on deposition day, and sometimes calling in off-camera is the only option; however, when possible, counsel should be on camera and engaged, supporting their witness. This entails more than just showing up on screen. It also means not appearing visibly distracted with other work during questioning, not eating lunch, and not jumping on and off camera or walking around. Witnesses, especially nervous ones, pick up on these subtle cues more than one might think. To put it simply, your virtual witnesses should receive the same level of attention as your in-person witnesses would—if you wouldn’t bring other work, snacks, or take calls in a pre-pandemic deposition room, you shouldn’t do it in the online setting, either.
Since depositions have moved online, we’ve also witnessed a steady decline in general respect for what a deposition actually is. We have seen: a witness smoking a cigarette while providing testimony, another witness appearing shirtless from bed, one witness answering questions while driving his semi-truck for work (cue an accident?), and a plaintiff unable to complete his own deposition after smoking marijuana on a break. It goes without saying that behavior like this, even if not recorded on video, often results in less than optimal witness performance and would have never been deemed acceptable in the pre-pandemic era. To combat this witness mentality that virtual is synonymous with “anything goes,” it is important to remember that even in the online space, witnesses look to their counsel for cues and guidance. Attire is one example where counsel can set the tone. We have regularly seen attorneys appear sprawled out on their couch (we are not kidding), wearing backwards hats, and even well-worn t-shirts, thus setting a low standard for others. It all starts with the lawyer, and clients/witnesses will quite literally, follow suit. This is not to say that attorneys need to show up to a virtual deposition in a tailored three-piece ensemble, but the nature and seriousness of a deposition should not be minimized simply because it is occurring online. At the very least, it is worth a pre-deposition conversation with the witness to note that proper attire is required: clean, decent, and not revealing.
Additionally, don’t be afraid to nip any negative behaviors in the bud. Remaining quiet while your witness lights up a cigarette only serves as affirmation that this action is acceptable. While an initial moment of silence may be an understandable consequence of shock or surprise, failing to address these types of behaviors in a timely fashion is a mistake, and will likely just lead to additional bad conduct down the line. Simply request a break, get on the phone with the client, and remind them that this is a legal proceeding.
Simply because technology enables participation from almost anywhere, does not mean that should be encouraged. Failing to address the location and environment with your witness often results in witnesses connecting from unusual or even public places. We have seen witnesses participate in depositions while serving customers at work, walking down a noisy street, working out on the treadmill, and even while riding a crowded city bus. These types of environments not only disrupt the flow of a deposition, but also make it nearly impossible for a witness to bring their “A-game,” as the chance of distraction is ever-present.
At the end of the day, most fact witnesses have never participated in a deposition before, much less a virtual one. Simply instructing a witness to download Zoom on their mobile phone and click a link a certain time leaves too much up to chance. Take the same measures when scheduling a deponent for a virtual deposition as you would for an in-person meeting. Pre-pandemic, a witness would only be put on the calendar for a date/time that they were free to come sit in an office; similarly, a virtual deposition should only be scheduled for a time where the witness can be in a quiet space, free from distractions.
Although anything can derail a deposition or legal proceeding, virtual or not, the above tips help to move cases forward without sacrificing quality. Virtual does not equate to casual. Recommitting to the seriousness of a deposition under oath and guiding your clients through how to best handle this will ensure an easier path forward, as virtual has likely made a permanent imprint on the legal community.
Click to read more about:
How does Peter Hecht apply Magna Legal Services’ “ABO – Always Be On” mentality at home with his family? He recently sat down with the hosts of Executive Leaders Radio to reveal that and so much more.
Listen below.
Peter Hecht
Tell me about your connection to the South Jersey Jewish Community?
I actually grew up in East Brunswick, Exit 9 off the Turnpike. But we’ve been in South Jersey for 17-18 years and are members of Adath Emanu-El in Mount Laurel. As a matter of fact, my youngest son just celebrated his bar mitzvah Covid-style in our backyard! I was a NY City fan as a teen–loved the NY Jets; my boys are Knicks fans. But my wife is a Sixers junkie–so South Jersey is seeping into our blood.
What was your first job?
I worked in the pre-paid calling card business. Back when pay phones were still all over the place, a calling card was incredibly useful. Businesses would provide them to customers as promotional items; personalize the card itself and have a promotional message when you made a call. The cards were popular in Europe too and some cards are considered collectibles! Didn’t get paid much at first; my dad would actually give me the train money I needed just to get to work! I worked in the telecom industry for about 8 years.
How did you go from a telecom job to founding Magna Legal Services?
Well, I wanted to make a career change, but I was very much typecast as a telecom guy. So, my father-in-law suggested that I work with him in the court reporting business. I figured it would be a resume filler that would allow me to switch gears and get into a Fortune 500 Company. So, I went to work for him; fell in love with the work, and before we knew it, we became partners and created Magna.
Can you give us an elevator pitch on Magna Legal Services?
Magna is 14 years young and headquartered in Philadelphia with offices in all the major NFL cities. We are an end-to-end litigation support provider, helping with everything from litigation to discovery, language services, medical services, social media surveillances including a graphics team that will help you tell your story in court. We will even sit 2nd or 3rd chair in trials to manage the technological presentation! We are also a virtual service provider for arbitration, depositions and conferences, which was a big help to everyone in the last year. And if you ever need a mock trial to help with preparation, we can do that too.
That’s a lot! So, are you an attorney now?
Actually, no. My dad is a tax attorney and CPA, so when I was at Rutgers for undergrad, I thought about being a lawyer, but in the early ’90s there was an over-abundance of attorneys–many out of work–so I just didn’t do it. My work at Magna is focused on the sales, marketing, and management of the business.
What’s it like working with your father-in-law?
Family events are interesting. You can never turn off the business–at a family dinner or bar mitzvah, conversation always loops back to Magna. Now, my father-in-law’s youngest son is also a partner in Magna.
Did you find your psychology and sociology background helpful in what you do at Magna?
I’ve always been a people person, and my college experience gave me depth in understanding what motivates people.
Can you share a fun fact about yourself?
Who doesn’t like to spend time with their family? My wife and kids are everything. I enjoy my kids; they are so different from me. My daughter and both sons are all athletic. I like to ski but honestly don’t have many hobbies. My hobby is Magna! It’s my sport. I want to win in selling. It’s my passion. The secret to happiness is finding a job that you love.
This article was originally published in the Jewish Community Voice paper on June 21st, 2021.
Jury selection began on this week for part two of a trial for a man charged with killing five employees at a Maryland newspaper in 2018. As Magna’s Ross Suter told the Associated Press, attorneys have their work cut out for them choosing a jury in a high-profile case in a small community during a pandemic.
A Maryland judge carefully focused on asking potential jurors whether they believed they could be fair and impartial in weighing the plea of guilty but not criminally responsible by a man who killed five people at the Capital Gazette newspaper nearly three years ago.
Judge Michael Wachs emphasized that Jarrod Ramos already pleaded guilty to all 23 counts against him in 2019, but he has pleaded not criminally responsible due to his mental health.
Jurors in the second phase of his trial will be asked to determine whether Ramos lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct in a case that will be based largely on testimony from mental health experts.
After delays in a case that will be three years old next week, an initial pool of 300 potential jurors was chosen for consideration to fill 12 seats on the jury and several alternates. About 50 of them were already dismissed, based on their responses to a questionnaire.
The court ended up with about 20 qualified jurors after the first round of questioning at the Anne Arundel County Circuit Courthouse in Annapolis, just a few miles from where the attack happened.
Many of the potential jurors who were dismissed said they would have a difficult time being impartial. Some cited the trouble they would have viewing a video recording of the attack that is expected to be shown.
Ross Suter, senior vice president of litigation solutions for Magna Legal Services, described it as a unique case during a pandemic.
“They’re really going to be looking for people that are impartial, that are reasonable — that are going to be able to listen and make up their minds,” Suter said.
Under Maryland’s insanity defense law, a defendant has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not criminally responsible for his actions. State law says a defendant is not criminally responsible for criminal conduct if, because of a mental disorder or developmental disabilities, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
“My understanding is it’s a difficult defense to make and to have success with,” Suter said.
Click below to read the full article on APNews.com
In the July issue of Healthcare Risk Management, Dr. Rachel York Colangelo shows how Magna’s pandemic-era jury research points to a ‘COVID glow’ that could last for years:
Hospitals and other healthcare organizations could benefit from a COVID-19 “glow” or “halo effect” in which medical malpractice juries look more favorably on defendants because of the public’s positive perception of healthcare workers. The portrayal of doctors and nurses as heroes might leave a lasting impression that affects how jurors perceive defense arguments.
COVID-19-era jury perception surveys conducted by Magna Legal Services, a national jury consulting firm, revealed healthcare is one of the industries likely to benefit from a “halo effect” in litigation that goes to trial. Survey data indicates that 81% of respondents reported a greater sense of compassion for healthcare workers since before COVID-19, says Rachel York Colangelo, PhD, Magna’s national managing director of jury consulting.
Twenty-three percent of potential jurors surveyed knew a COVID-19 healthcare worker. Sixty percent of respondents said they would be “less critical of healthcare workers post-COVID.” Eighty percent said they were “very concerned” about COVID-19 healthcare workers, and 81% said they would have a greater sense of compassion for healthcare workers after the pandemic.
Click for more information on this survey
“What we’re seeing is not surprising, given the publicity that frontline healthcare workers dealing with COVID have received,” Colangelo says. “Because of the goodwill they have garnered as a result of their tireless work, we are seeing what we call a ‘halo effect’ for not only frontline healthcare workers but the healthcare industry in general.”
There is a greater awareness of the work done by healthcare professionals, the conditions in which they work, the long hours, lack of resources, overcrowding, and the sacrifice of personal time.
“With that appreciation and understanding also comes a less critical view in the minds of the public who are potential jurors,” she says.
The effect also benefits pharmaceutical companies because of the public’s appreciation for the quick development of COVID-19 vaccines, she notes.
Click below to read the full article on reliasmedia.com.