American Amusement Machine Association’s Post

I talked with Matt Bennett about his arguments against the third-party political campaign No Labels. We discussed Matt’s steelman of the campaign, being politically homeless, nuclear energy & the American left’s unrealistic energy policies, the problem with No Labels’ theory about moving candidates in their direction, the credibility of winning the election, two theories of preventing another Trump presidency, the 1992 Ross Perot campaign, candidates for the No Labels ticket, growing disgust with the political establishment, the No Labels policy platform, the epistemology of the decision, independents as leaners, Teddy Roosevelt’s third-party bid, the difficulty of finding a candidate more appealing than Trump to Trump supporters, the plausibility attractor, consequences of Robert F. Kennedy & Cornel West’s decision to run as independents, and much more.

Having spent over a decade picking juries in NYC, I can confirm that anti-corporate sentiments have been prevalent for a long time. Recent events such as the Great Recession, pandemic, and numerous scandals have only exacerbated these feelings. One of the primary causes of nuclear verdicts is the increasing wealth gap in our country. Jurors, like the rest of us, are constantly inundated with stories of affluent individuals and trillion-dollar companies that appear to have little regard for people or the environment. It's crucial to remember that not all businesses fit this stereotype. As trial attorneys, it's our duty to understand this and prove to the jury that our client is unique. If you're sending in standard-issue corporate automatons into the courtroom, you've already lost. Let's collaborate to close the gap and remind the world that there are still companies that treat their employees well and contribute to society. #trialattorney #corporateaccountability #wealthgap

A few months ago I participated in a panel of mediators discussing nuclear verdicts. Juror's attitudes are changing quickly. Regions that were considered "conservative" and pro-defendant are no longer. Assumptions about political affiliations are evolving. If you are a trial lawyer and you are using the same playbook from even 5 years ago, you need to be open to changing tactics. The first article I read this morning was a Houston jury awarding $1.2 Billion to a woman whose ex-boyfriend hacked her computer and spread pornographic images of her online after the breakup. You know the saying, some things are worse than death? Well, this jury definitely thought "revenge porn" was one of those things. Significantly, the defendant did not show up to trial. The jury awarded $200 million for past and future mental anguish and $1 Billion in exemplary damages. Apparently they awarded $100 million more than plaintiff asked for at closing. What's $100 million among 12 friends? Plaintiff's attorney acknowledged that the money will not be collected but argued that the inability to easily discharge in bankruptcy should be a deterrent to future wrong-doers. Jurors are angry and often want to make a statement. As the dollars for nuclear verdicts increase that statement often involves an extra "zero." The goal for plaintiffs lawyers and the fear for defense attorneys is that the more people hear about these verdicts - the more billboards they see with huge numbers - the more numb they are to them and the easier it is to award big numbers. So, don't be stuck in the 1960s like Dr. Evil and think $1 million is a big ask. Review data, do mock trials, hire jury consultants, and get a neutral involved to provide some perspective.

One of the findings of my dissertation was that an anchor is made substantially more powerful by adding meaning to it. As Kristi Harrington puts it: "give the jury concrete examples of what the plaintiff can do with the money in real life dollars." Some good insights here for defense attorneys staring down big damages asks from the other side. #litigation #damages https://lnkd.in/edceeJWP

While the amount of stranded spent fuel continues to grow, so do the financial costs. Since 2000, U.S. taxpayers have paid $10.6 billion in damages to cover costs of on-site dry cask spent fuel storage. These costs could eventually reach more than $30 billion if the federal government does not take action. Learn how you can help below ⬇️  https://bit.ly/3kjnyQ1 

Plaintiff attorneys are skilled at tapping into jurors’ emotions in the courtroom to make their arguments resonate, in pursuit of successful decisions that can often lead to large jury verdicts. Some practices they may deploy include: Forum shopping: Filing lawsuits in specific jurisdictions where cases tend to result in more favorable verdicts. Jury anchoring: Setting a specific reference point or “anchor” on the value of the damages (even when numbers are arbitrary or have no correlation to the actual value) at the beginning of a proceeding to artificially influence the jury’s estimation of value. In other words, the more plaintiff attorneys ask for, the more they get. Reptile strategy: Efforts to appeal to jurors’ emotions that could trigger feelings of danger to influence their decision-making. Jurors may make decisions based on the feeling they are keeping themselves and their communities safe by holding a defendant accountable. This tactic can often be reinforced by shifting societal attitudes toward corporate defendants.

This #FMG blog written by Tim Soefje and Gabriel Canto covers the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Gregory v. Chohan which involved an appeal of a trucking wrongful death case following a tragic pile up on an icy road in rural #Texas. Click below to read how defense counsel can consider using the lessons learned from this case in responsive pleadings, discovery requests, objections to deposition questions, and more. #FMGlaw #Texaslaw #TX #nuclearverdicts #wrongfuldeath https://lnkd.in/ejSeJ9pK

In today's blog, Tim Soefje and I discuss the Texas Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Gregory v. Cohan that dramatically impacts the potential value of catastrophic claims in Texas. All Texas defense attorneys should keep this case handy. #texaslawyer #nuclearverdicts #fmg

Here are some top verdicts from around the country from 2022: $2,036,865,046 Verdict in Virginia $948,755,799 Verdict in Texas $333,801,990 Verdict in Delaware What do these verdicts have in common? They're intellectual property cases. They aren't personal injury or wrongful death cases. Wondering why you didn't hear about these verdicts as examples of nuclear verdicts? Because corporations and the defense industry don't bat an eye at a nine or ten-figure verdict in a business dispute. It's because they could be plaintiffs in those cases and want to be able to claim damages for the harms and losses that another business could inflict on them. Yet when a human life is taken, some are outraged that a jury could value a human life as being worth tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of dollars. Our jury system works when 12 members of the community decide the value of what was taken--whether it involves a business or a person who suffered damages. Imposing arbitrary limits on what should be awarded to human beings for their losses cheapens the value of human life.