NOVEMBER 2025 | 11 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. they say something funny. A juror who gets these cues from you will tell you what you want to know. THE STORYTELLER “One thing I have learned from this experience is that it is hard to keep an audience attentive and involved with a ‘speech,’ but it’s easy if you tell a story that involves your listeners and inspires them with a memorable moral.” – Jim M. Perdue People are people. From Genesis to Star Wars, human beings crave a story that connects them to the best and worst aspects of the human experience. Our friends and neighbors need something to aspire to, move on from, pity or avenge. While a well-informed, honest and open jury goes a long way, if the jury can’t connect with you on an emotional level, for many, it falls flat. Your client’s story won’t ring true. It is more than the law and facts that the public desires – it’s the story of why we are here. Juror research indicates that the presentation of evidence in story form is more persuasive than listing facts and witness order recitations.8 Prosecutors who have presented solidly investigated cases consistent with the law have fallen to a not guilty verdict due to a lack of a compelling story. Defense attorneys have felt the sting of guilt for a client the attorney believed was innocent, with no relatable tales told. Personal injury cases that are well laid out evaporate for want of how it has affected the plaintiff. Speeches based solely on logic come up short, with many jurors expecting to hear a tale of revenge or infidelity. Love lost or riches gained can fill in the holes of logic when a lawyer is missing scientific evidence. Juries want the reasons, emotions and actions to come together in a story they can understand. It is your job to present it to them. Fail to do so at your own peril and the peril of your client. BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER Example Voir Dire Segment Attorney: Juror #8, have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Juror #8: Yeah, I’ve heard of it from movies and TV. Attorney: Is innocent until proven guilty a good idea? Juror #8: Of course. Attorney: Why? Juror #8: We shouldn’t assume people did it just because someone said so. Attorney: I would agree with you. Does everyone believe that if given a jury instruction on innocent until proven guilty, they would follow it? (Everyone in the jury panel says yes, nods and raises their hands.) Attorney: I remember you telling the judge you have kids. All within a few years of each other, right? Juror #8: Yessir. Attorney: I’ve got kids, and whenever someone breaks the lamp, I round up the usual suspects. Juror #8, have you ever rounded them up and asked them questions about the lamp? Juror #8: Many times. Attorney: So let’s paint the scene. The lamp is broken, and the kids are standing around pointing at each other. How do you tell how the lamp was broken? Juror #8: I look at body language and ask them questions and see if the stories match up. AT THE END OF THE DAY While we have come a long way from the Magna Carta to Matlock, people are people. An Oklahoma practitioner who introduces their prospective jury panel during voir dire to the three roles of educator, confidant and storyteller, as shown in this article, may not prevail every time. However, tapping the vein of the human experience through knowledge, trust and drama will assist in effectively delivering your message to the jury and increasing your chances for success for those you represent. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Matthew R. Price is an attorney in Muskogee and a founding partner at Hammons Hamby & Price. He represents clients in criminal defense. He also serves as a criminal public defender for the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System in Muskogee, McIntosh and Sequoyah counties. Mr. Price is the involuntary commitment counsel and public guardian counsel in Muskogee County. ENDNOTES 1. http://bit.ly/4ocN34A. 2. “The 1215 Magna Carta: Clause 39,” The Magna Carta Project, trans. H. Summerson et al. http://bit.ly/4306ghw (last accessed May 5, 2025). 3. U.S. Const. amend. VI. 4. Okla. Const. art. II, §20. 5. Okla. Dist. Ct. R. 6. 6. Lee J. Curley, James Munro and Itiel E. Dror, “Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making,” Medicine, Science and the Law (July 2022). 7. www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/trust. 8. Nancy Pennington and Reid Hastie, “Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model,” Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 13, (1991) p. 542-543.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==