Find Your Case Story: How Focus Groups Transform Trial Strategies

When you’re deep into trial preparation, you often know your client’s story inside and out. You’ve spent months analyzing evidence, combing through records, reading and re-reading deposition transcripts, and crafting a narrative you feel certain will resonate with jurors. But what if the most critical details—the ones your jury truly cares about—aren’t the ones you expect?

That’s precisely what happened in a recent case involving a catastrophic injury at an event venue.

The Case at a Glance

In this case, our plaintiff—let’s call him “Michael”—suffered a severe brain injury after being unexpectedly attacked by a coworker while working as security staff at a public event. Michael’s attorneys were confident their strongest angle was emphasizing the event staffing company’s negligence in hiring and training the attacker who had a bit of a checkered past.

Despite their confidence, the lawyers knew better than to go to trial without focus group feedback on the case. What they discovere validated their decision. They found that their framing of the case overlooked key emotional and logical triggers for potential jurors.

What the Focus Group Revealed

The focus group, with diverse backgrounds ranging from teachers to engineers, sales representatives, and healthcare workers, revealed several compelling insights:

1. Jurors Wanted a Clearer Picture of the Attacker’s Background:

Initially, jurors felt sympathetic to Michael’s injuries but had difficulty connecting the event company’s hiring practices to the attacker’s actions. As one juror asked bluntly:

“Did the company really fail, or was this person simply unpredictable? How could they have known?”

Most importantly, the jurors scolded the plaintiff's team a bit for using a prior drug conviction against the employee and company when the attack had nothing to do with drugs. This feedback is commonly shared by focus groups presented with evidence of "prior bad acts." There better be a connection between those acts and the facts of the case.

This highlighted a critical gap: The jurors needed clearer evidence of what exactly the company missed during their hiring process.

2. The Unexpected Power of Authority Symbols:

The attorneys had not fully appreciated how much weight jurors gave to symbolic authority—like a security uniform. One juror explained:

“When someone puts on that uniform, we automatically trust them. The company told everyone, ‘This person is safe.’ That means they had a duty to know exactly who they were endorsing.”

This became a pivotal turning point. Jurors emphasized not just negligence, but betrayal of trust, something deeply personal and powerful in their decision-making.

3. Jurors Focused on Personal Impact, Not Just Medical Details:

The attorneys had meticulously prepared detailed medical evidence on brain injuries, assuming the complexity would sway jurors. Surprisingly, jurors zeroed in instead on the devastating disruption to Michael’s life and family:

“Yes, the medical details matter, but what’s more impactful is what Michael lost—his independence, his plans, his dreams for retirement. The life he and his wife built together. That’s what’s truly devastating.”

This insight was transformative. It shifted the attorneys’ focus from strictly medical arguments to more powerful, human-centered storytelling.

Adjusting the Strategy

Equipped with this crucial juror feedback, Michael’s attorneys significantly revised their trial strategy:

• They gathered explicit evidence showing how thoroughly the company had failed in its hiring practices, emphasizing their lack of due diligence and inadequate training.

• They reframed their narrative to focus on the betrayal of public trust when the company allowed an unsafe employee to represent security, rather than only emphasizing a generalized negligence claim.

• They placed greater emphasis on Michael’s personal story—how the injury had irrevocably changed his and his family’s lives—making the impact more relatable and emotionally compelling.

The Takeaway: Why Focus Groups Matter

Without conducting a focus group, Michael’s attorneys risked walking into court missing critical emotional triggers and persuasive insights. Focus groups don’t just test your case—they reveal hidden perspectives and unexpected emotional anchors that resonate powerfully with jurors.

In short, they show you not just how jurors think—but how they feel.

For attorneys preparing for trial, the question isn’t, “Can I afford a focus group?” It’s “Can I afford not to?”

Strong evidence doesn't automatically equate to a compelling story. A well-framed narrative of the case, supported by competent evidence, keeps the jury engaged and invested in the case.