Jurist — continued from Page 28
many women trial attorneys. The quality of voice makes a surprising difference in keeping jurors engaged. Tired jurors pick up with the energy of a vibrant voice.
Soft voices of either gender can be a dis- advantage, and this tends to be some- thing more common with women because of naturally softer voices. Women should
be able to use this as an advantage if the softer voice is always calm and in control. I have heard experts in the field of psy- chology and psychiatry refer to the resist- ance felt by people when women’s voices get loud and shrill, reminding them of their mothers “yelling” at them. The shift from being too quiet to being loud and firm enough has to skirt the potential for sounding shrill. The impression of a commanding
presence deals with the projection of one’s confidence. Everyone can recall the experience of watching an actor or speaker on a stage or on the screen where one cannot take their eyes away. That “something” is in large part the skillful projection of confidence. Both of these qualities, presence and
voice, can be achieved and/or improved with thought and practice. However, if the quality is one that is not quite “real,” the danger is that there may be moments when the mask is dropped and jurors will see the real lawyer behind the image. Vulnerability can be extremely
appealing to jurors, when it is owned. Trial lawyers who drop something or get caught mid-word or mid-strategy with an obvious miscalculation or mistake can win jurors’ sympathy and support by acknowledging the error or miscalcula- tion with some humor and moving on. This ability not to get stricken with embarrassment or to be thrown off stride comes with maturity and genuineness, qualities available to both genders.
Being professional Mastering the Evidence Code unfor-
tunately tends to be rare and is seen most often with trial lawyers of either gender who were trained, too often, in the crimi- nal sector. Experience with the rules of evidence includes knowing when not to make an objection, or at the very least, making them infrequently and only when it serves a real purpose, such as protect- ing your witness. Peppering the other side with objections that may be valid but achieve no real purpose other than to rattle the opponent is not well received by jurors. If anything, they often engen- der sympathy for the lawyer they see as
30 — The Advocate Magazine FEBRUARY 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96