When I used to prosecute criminals in jury trials, virtually every case would center on just one or two of the elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with.
(For those with the good fortune not to have spent any time in the U.S. criminal system, criminal charges are broken down into sub-components called "elements": typically that this defendant, on or about this date, in this jurisdiction, conducted this act, with this mental state. These elements are what the prosecutor must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." So as I would sometimes remind juries being introduced to this concept that whether or not Mr. Simpson could put his hand in a glove is certainly interesting and good theater, but it was only important so far as it contributed to their degree of doubt as to that one element of the crime that he was charged with: was it "this defendant" who committed the crime.)
Anyway, the one or two elements in question were typically in question because this is where the evidence available was either the thinnest, or of a nature to most likely be targeted by the defense attorney in some clever attempt to create "reasonable doubt" where only unreasonable doubts actually existed.
Not only would I focus my trial theory around these weak points, so that they would be shored up continuously throughout the trial, I would also very pointedly explain the concept of elements to the jury during the opening statement and tell them myself (never let your opponent deliver the bad news and make it look like he caught you either hiding something or simply being unprepared) what I saw as the one or two areas in question for this particular trial. I would then explain to them that it was my duty to prove every element of every crime beyond a reasonable doubt, not every issue that might be brought up that day, and to hold me to that standard. That was then their duty to either acquit the defendant if I failed in my duty; to find him guilty if I succeeded.
I am a strong believer in understanding what one is trying to accomplish, and being quite forthright about what the potential areas of concern are. You MUST condition the jury to expect certain types of attacks at your points of weakness as well as educate the jury as to what it is that actually signifies success.
I was rarely the most experienced attorney in the courtroom, but I was always the only combat vet Special Forces officer in the room. I won a lot of trials by applying principles of unconventional warfare and by doing what I describe above.
Too often leaders try to hide these points of weakness, and do not educate the jury (i.e. the populace) of what the true measure of success is. To me this is fundamental to effective IO. We know for a fact that the TB is committed to conducting such high profile attacks, be it bombings in major cities, or shooting down of a helicopter. We need to condition the populace to the likelihood of such events, and educate them as to what they actually mean in the big scheme of things.
When the defense attorney would then launch his attack at my weak point, I rarely saw the jury react in a negative way. What I typically saw was them exchange knowing looks with each other, and often me, that here the attack is, just as I, their trusted agent of the state had told them it would be, and they would lean forward and take notes, because they knew not only that it was important, but why.
Just a thought. We could do much better at conditioning and educating the juries for our current operations.
Bookmarks