How to Conduct an Online Focus Group

A step-by-step guide

©2008 OnlineVerdict.com

Page 2 (858) 675-7557

WELCOME TO ONLINEVERDICT.COM: The new revolution in jury research!

Conducting a focus group or mock trial online is as easy as 1-2-3:

1. Lawyers or legal professionals post a case summary to the OnlineVerdict.com website.

2. Participants who are jury eligible and match the venue demographics are e-mailed an invitation to review the case.

3. Tabulated juror feedback is e-mailed to the attorney or legal professional who posted the case.

If you are ready to start the case review process, this step-by-step guide will assist you in preparing for your OnlineVerdict.com study.

Summary of the Case Preparation Process:

Step #1: Create an Account

Step #2: Enter a Case

Step #3: Create Case Summary

Step #4: Prepare Jury Instructions

Step #5: Upload Case Summary

Step #6: Create Case Questions

Step #7: Receive Juror Feedback

Please note that any information you enter into the OnlineVerdict.com system is automatically saved. So, if you need to leave the case submission process and come back, you will be able to pick up where you left off. Just log in to your account with your e-mail address and password.

Need Assistance?If you have any questions along the way, please feel free to call us at (858) 675-7557, or e-mail us at info@onlineverdict.com. We will be happy to assist you in any way we can. If you would like expert advice in drafting your case summary and juror questions, OnlineVerdict.com will provide a litigation consultant to assist you.

Page 3(858) 675-7557

To start the OnlineVerdict.com process you will first need to create an attorney account. You will be asked to enter:

• Attorney name

• Firm

• Mailing address

• Phone

• E-mail address

• A password for your OnlineVerdict.com account

*For 1st time users only. Returning customers will login and start with step #2.

To post a new case for juror review you will need to enter:

• Your name

• Complete case caption

• A fictitious case name

• Venue (state or federal)

• Indicate whether you are within three (3) months of trial

• The number of jurors you want to review your case (25, 50 or more)

If you would like to test your case in a venue other than the actual case venue (due to confidentiality or exposure concerns), please enter the actual venue in the case setup process and note the alternative venue you would prefer for testing in the comments section. OnlineVerdict.com consultants can assist you in determining an alternative venue that will be a good demographic match for your case. Just give us a call at (858) 675-7557 or e-mail us at info@onlineverdict.com.

If your case is within three (3) months of trial, we will question jurors in the case review invitation process to make sure they or a family member have not received a jury summons in the mail for that county.

The system is set up to test 25 or 50 jurors. However, we can test any multiple of 25 if you would prefer to test your case on a larger sample. Just note how many jurors you would like to review your case in the comments section (Note: $1,000 for each additional 25 jurors).

Step 2: Enter a Case

Step 1: Create an Account*

Page 4 (858) 675-7557

The next step is to create your case summary. This is the most important part of the process. Determine the elements of your case that you wish to test (it may be the entire case, or it may be a specific theme or theory of your case). Make sure that your case elements can be simplified and presented in a clear, concise format for jurors.

Prepare your case summary as a Microsoft Word or WordPerfect document and upload that document at the bottom of the “Case Summary” page. OnlineVerdict.com will then review your case summary and post it to the secure website upon approval.

Here are a few tips for creating a balanced case summary:

Summary of the facts from both the plaintiff and defense perspectives

It is important that the plaintiff and defense summaries be as balanced as possible in order to ensure an accurate juror response. The facts should read like a combined opening statement and closing argument, summarizing the facts and testimony of your case, and including argument where needed.

You may test up to two defendants for each case. We recommend using fictitious names to protect the identity of the parties or witnesses, but be consistent.

Start with a general overview:

1. Give a very brief overview of the case (1-4 sentences). State the disagreement clearly.

2. Identify all the parties involved.

3. Provide a brief explanation of the applicable case law. For example, “This is a negligence case. Negligence means the failure to exercise that degree of care which a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.”

The next three steps should be followed for both the plaintiff and defense summaries:

4. Begin with a 1-2 sentence statement that pinpoints exactly what the case is about. For example, “This is a case about how an employer has a duty to properly hire, train and supervise its drivers in order to minimize accidents and injuries to other drivers. But the defendant in this case failed to do that.”

5. Outline your case arguments. Include relevant facts, testimony and corresponding graphics and/or documents for support.

6. Argue for or against the damages claimed.

(See the sample case summary at the end of this document for a model).

Step 3: Create Case Summary

Page 5(858) 675-7557

Exhibits/Graphics: You may also include exhibits or graphics in your case summary document (in a JPG, GIF or PNG file format). If you prefer to send your visual support separately, note where the visuals should go in your case summary and e-mail them as an attachment to admin@onlineverdict.com.

Length: The combined plaintiff and defense case summary should be approximately 3-5 pages single-spaced, or about 2,500 words. Your case summary can be longer, but it will require an additional fee for juror pay.

The jury instructions will conclude your case summary document. In preparing the instructions for the jury make sure you:

1. Include all necessary legal definitions and instructions for the jurors to properly answer the verdict questions, but simplify the law as much as you can.

2. Include any special instructions but do not include any admonitory instructions.

3. Clearly number each instruction.

Length: Limit jury instructions to one (1) page. (See the sample jury instructions in the sample case summary on p. 13 of this step-by-step guide.)

Step 4: Prepare Jury Instructions

Page 6 (858) 675-7557

Step 6: Create Case Questions

You should now upload your “Case Summary” document (which includes a brief case summary, identification of the parties, key arguments and support for both sides, and the jury instructions). The box at the bottom of the “Case Summary” web page allows you to browse your computer to find the correct file and then upload it to our system.

If you prefer, you may send your case summary as an e-mail attachment to admin@onlineverdict.com. We will confirm receipt and notify you of any last minute changes before posting your case to our secure website.

Verdict questions and any additional juror questions

Each question will be entered separately into the question-builder system once your case summary and the jury instructions have been uploaded.

1. Use the same verdict questions you would use at trial.

2. You may also include additional case specific or follow-up questions. For example, “What was the strongest argument for the plaintiff?”

OnlineVerdict.com provides a question builder with the option of using a variety of question types including Yes/No, numeric, money, percentage, multiple choice with single and multiple answers, scales and open-ended responses (see sample questions on the next page). The question builder also allows you to make edits to and change the order of questions you submit.

Limit: Five (5) verdict questions and five (5) additional questions for a total of 10 questions. Additional questions will require an additional fee for juror pay.

Assistance?If you would like expert advice, OnlineVerdict.com will provide a litigation consultant to assist you in the drafting and editorial review of questions. Just give us a call.

Step 5: Upload Case Summary

Page 7(858) 675-7557

Question Types

Page 8 (858) 675-7557

Page 9(858) 675-7557

Sample Case Summary

Step 7: Receive administration approval and wait for juror feedback

Case Name: Smith v. Dairy Products Case Number: 1001 Juror Pay: $20

[Note: This instruction will appear at the beginning of every case summary]. Please read the following case summary very closely. When you are fi nished you will be asked a series of questions about the case. If you prefer, you may print this case summary and then return to this page to answer the juror questions. When you have completed all the questions, click the “Submit Verdict” button at the bottom of this page.

PLAINTIFF CASE ARGUMENTIntroductionThe defendant, Dairy Products, Inc. had a duty to properly hire, train and supervise its drivers in order to minimize accidents and injuries to other drivers. However, the defendant, Dairy Products failed to properly hire, train and supervise its driver, Gary Clausen. Consequently, he sped through an intersection and crashed into an innocent driver. Their negligence caused the tragic, catastrophic death of the plaintiff, Joseph Smith.

The plaintiff’s argument outlines why Dairy Products is negligent on two levels: 1) for their negligent hiring, training and supervising practices of their drivers, and 2) for employing Gary Clausen, who caused this crash and never should have been hired as a driver in the fi rst place.

Negligent HiringIn February of 1994, Gary Clausen applied to Dairy Products as a dock worker. He was hired and worked successfully for about one year when he decided to apply for a driver position. Steven Reese, who is Dairy Products’ President/General Manager, will testify that “one of the most important factors [in looking at a driving applicant] is an individual’s driving record.”

Gary Clausen’s 10 year driving record included two accidents, six driving violations, and one license suspension for a ‘hit and run.’

OnlineVerdict.com administrators will review your case materials and notify you if there are any problems. Upon approval, the designated number of jurors will be e-mailed an invitation to review your case. When the jurors have completed their review, the tabulated report of their responses will be e-mailed to you.

In large venues, you can expect the fi nal report in about a week. In smaller venues, results may take longer. Please give us a call at (858) 675-7557 to discuss rush scheduling or if you are inter-ested in having your case results reviewed by an experienced trial consultant.

Page 10 (858) 675-7557

Despite Dairy Products’ hiring policy, Steven Reese admits that they were not aware of Clausen’s driving violations at the time they hired him.

Had they reviewed his driving record and applied it to their own evaluation system, he would not have been hired. Dairy Products rates the applicant’s driving violation record according to a Driver Evaluation Form. On this form, previous violations and infractions receive points. Dairy Products uses this point system to determine if a driver is too risky to hire. 0-15 points is considered “Acceptable”; 15-30 points is considered “Possible”; and above 30 points is considered ‘Unacceptable”.

Q: Does Dairy Products conduct periodic road tests of its drivers?

A: No it does not.

Q: Does Dairy Products maintain reports with respect to those road tests?

A: No, not really.

In addition, if drivers continue to get violations while employed as a driver, there is no consequence. Steven Reese admitted that no Dairy Products’ employee has been terminated due to their driving record.

The AccidentBy October 5, 1995, Gary Clausen had been employed as a driver by Dairy Products for six months. He had just made a delivery and was proceeding South on Main Street towards the intersection at Main and Spring (1/2 mile away).

There are conflicting reports as to what happened next, but some witnesses tell police that Gary Clausen was speeding and ran a red light.

Driver Evaluation FormDairy Products assigned Mr. Clausen 0 points, essentially a perfect score despite his violations and license suspension. The defendant, Dairy Products, hired Mr. Clausen as a driver regardless of his driving record.

Negligent TrainingAfter Mr. Clausen was hired, he was given a written test and a road test. On the written test, Mr. Clausen answered 20 of the questions out of 100 wrong. In addition, the road test trainer did not require Mr. Clausen to complete the road test but passed him anyway.

Negligent SupervisionThere are many areas in which Dairy Products failed in supervising drivers. First, Dairy Products does not conduct periodic road tests of its drivers. Second, Dairy Products does not maintain Commercial Drivers License records. When Steven Reese was questioned on this topic in his deposition, this is what he said:

Page 11(858) 675-7557

The speed limit on Main Street was 25 mph. The Fatal Traffic Collision Reconstruction determined that Clausen was speeding at 31 mph at impact. The police report says that Clausen “lost control of his unit and traveled from the south bound lanes into the north bound lanes of travel striking [Smith] who was stopped in the inner lane of travel heading north at the intersection of Main and Spring streets. [Smith] after impact was forced into…power utility pole which caused the death of [Smith].”

Conscious Pain and SufferingThe ambulance and coroner believe that Mr. Smith was alive for about 5 minutes and suffered greatly before he died.

In ConclusionDairy Products had a responsibility to put safe drivers on the road to deliver their product, but they failed to uphold this duty. Even though they stated that a driving record is the most important factor in screening new drivers, they did not do this. This makes them negligent because:

• They did not look at Clausen’s full driving record

• They did not include violations on their Driver Evaluation Form records

• Clausen’s point total indicated he did not meet standards

• They were aware of his speeding and license suspension but hired him anyway

• They ignored State/Fed standards by not getting a full driving history after being on notice of suspension

• There was no reprimand for his violations and accident

Instead, Dairy Products put a high risk driver on the road. As his employer, they are fully responsible for his actions.

So how do you assign blame to compensate the Smith family for such a tragic and needless loss? Joseph Smith was 52 years old. He had 3 children—ages, 28, 24, 21. He and his wife, Marie, were married for 30 years. He worked as a general contractor and made $65,000/year.

According to the Wrongful Death Act, when a company is negligent and causes the tragic death of a person, that person’s family is entitled to Lost Earning Capacity, Pain and Suffering, and his wife Marie is entitled to Loss of Consortium.

An expert economist, Dr. Ray Jones, estimated that Mr. Smith would have worked 17 more years. Based on his current income, plus benefits and pay raises, his lost earning capacity is $1.2 million. In addition, you as a juror are required to assess the value of Mr. Smith’s family’s pain and suffering as well as his own pain and suffering at the time of his death. And because Mrs. Smith will no longer have her husband’s companionship, help and support, you are to assess the value of her loss under the Loss of Consortium Law.

Page 12 (858) 675-7557

In conclusion, Mr. Smith’s death could have been prevented had Dairy Products employed drivers that were not at a high risk for driving dangerously. They willingly put Mr. Smith in harms way, but are now refusing to take responsibility for their actions. Until they do, the Smith family will continue to suffer the consequences of their actions. In addition, because Mrs. Smith will no longer have her husband’s companionship, help and support, you are to assess the value of her loss under the Loss of Consortium Law.

DEFENSE CASE ARGUMENT

This was a tragic accident and Dairy Products feels deep sympathy for the Smith family, but it is not responsible for the accident that tragically killed Joseph Smith. The evidence in this case does not point to Dairy Products and Gary Clausen as the responsible parties. Instead, another driver on the road, John Weber, ran a red light and caused this accident.

There are two main issues in this case that indicate why Dairy Products and Gary Clausen are not responsible for Mr. Smith’s death: 1) Dairy Products’ hiring, training, and supervising policies were not flawed, and 2) Gary Clausen did not cause the accident.

1. Hiring, training, supervising

This is a company with a long tradition of providing good service. Dairy Products has many policies and practices in place to ensure that service. This includes its hiring, training and supervising policies for its employees.

HiringWhile the plaintiffs would like the jury to believe that Dairy Products recklessly hires just anybody and disregards the proper steps in hiring someone, that is just not true. Dairy Products’ hiring process is very thorough and complex. There are many steps involved before a potential employee is hired.

First, after a potential employee fills out an application, their references are thoroughly checked. Gary Clausen applied to Dairy Products in 1994 and Steven Reese reviewed his application.

Even though Gary Clausen was hired as a dock worker, he expressed interest in driving a truck delivery route and Steven Reese considered him for the position almost one year later. It was not unusual for dock workers to also be drivers. In this instance, Dairy Products’ policy is to have the employee re-apply for that specific position and follow Fleet Safety Manual guidelines. Then, the applicant has to “have a physical, drug test, and an MVR” (moving violations report).

All three were done and Gary passed all three with flying colors.

At the time Mr. Clausen was hired, State and Federal regulations required that a potential driver’s 1 year driving history be examined for the moving violations report. Dairy Products, in complete compliance with this law, pulled Gary’s driving records for the previous year. Because Gary Clausen did not have any violations within the last year, he received 0 points on the Driver Evaluation Form.

TrainingOnce the hiring process is completed, training begins. Dairy Products sent Gary to get his Commercial Driver’s License or “CDL” and provided him literature to study for the test. Over the course of 6 months, a professional instructor from the CDL licensing bureau trained Gary to get his Commercial Driver’s License. Gary was then tested by both Dairy Products and the state of Illinois. After Gary passed his CDL test on the very first attempt, he was issued a CDL license. New hires at Dairy Products are then required to complete a 45 mile road test on 2 lane highways, under supervision, to evaluate how well they drive in those conditions. On the day of the test, the roads were slick from a snow storm. Therefore, Gary only completed 30 miles of the road test. However, Dairy Products felt that this was adequate especially since he had already completed his CDL training.

Page 13(858) 675-7557

SupervisionThe entire supervision process consists of the following: once a year a driver must complete a certificate of violations. Dairy Products did this every year. Dairy Products was in compliance with State and Federal regulations at all times.

After the driver fills out the driver evaluation form, Dairy Products reviews the responses with the Driver Review Board. This board reviews all licenses, accidents, etc., to ensure that “everything is being looked at.” If the Board believes that a driver requires some driving education due to a violation, they will send that driver to a defensive driving class. They will also send someone to ride along with the driver to make sure they are driving safely and professionally. The Board also sends pamphlets to its drivers to review for additional education.

2. Gary Clausen did not cause the accident; another driver caused the accident

The facts illustrate that another driver caused the accident that tragically killed Mr. Smith. His name is John Weber and he set the chain of events in motion. Some witnesses stated that Mr. Weber was speeding, ran a red light and hit Gary Clausen in the Dairy Products delivery truck, who then in turn hit Joe Smith.

And if the plaintiffs want to look at driving histories, then they should have looked at John Weber’s driving history. He had eight previous driving violations and was driving on a suspended license at the time of the accident.

In conclusionWhat more could Dairy Products have done? The plaintiffs argue that we should have checked Gary Clausen’s 10 year driving history instead of one year. However, the policy, by law, only requires a review of an applicant’s one year driving history.

Negligence means that we failed to do something an ordinary company would do or that we did something that an ordinary company would not do. Gary was a good employee and Dairy Products fully stands by him and his driving abilities. Any other ‘reasonable’ company would have hired him as well.

Finally, the evidence points to John Weber as the cause of the accident, not Gary Clausen. John Weber has a long history of driving recklessly, speeding, and disregarding the law by driving without a license. Therefore, we believe that when you review the verdict form you will find that Dairy Products is not negligent, and therefore not the substantial factor in Mr. Smith’s death.

INSTRUCTIONS OF LAW

The following jury instructions are based on the pattern jury charges a judge would give a real jury in this case. While the language can be confusing, each instruction is important. A judge typically would not answer a juror’s question about the law or instructions. Answer the questions to the best of your ability. If a part of the law is particularly confusing, you may note that in one of your open-ended responses below.

1. In Civil cases such as this one, the plaintiff has the burden of proving those contentions which entitle him to relief: In this case the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following propositions: that the defendant was negligent, and that negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident.

2. The legal term negligence, otherwise known as carelessness, is the absence of ordinary care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the circumstances here presented. Negligent conduct may consist either of an act or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. In other words, negligence is the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person would not do, in light of all the surrounding circumstances established by the evidence in this case.

3. In order for the Plaintiff to recover in this case, the Defendant’s negligent conduct must have been

Page 14 (858) 675-7557

Sample Report of Results

Trial Consulting Services

a substantial factor in bringing about the accident. A substantial factor is an actual, real factor, although the result may be unusual or unexpected, it is not an imaginary or fanciful factor or a factor having no connection or only an insignificant connection with the accident.

4. If you find that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff, you must then find an amount of money damages which you believe will fairly and adequately compensate the Plaintiff for all the physical and financial injury sustained as a result of the accident. The amount which you award today must compensate the Plaintiff completely for damage sustained in the past, as well as damage the Plaintiff will sustain in the future.

5. The Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for any loss or reduction of future earning capacity that

he/she will suffer as a result of the injuries sustained in this accident. In determining this amount, you may consider the type of work that the Plaintiff has done, the type of work which, in view of his physical condition, education, experience and age, he would have been doing and will be doing in the future, the extent and duration of the Plaintiff’s injuries, together with all other matters reasonably relevant. The amount of lost future earning capacity which you determine to have been sustained by the Plaintiff should be expressed by you in a dollar amount.

6. The Plaintiff’s spouse is entitled to be compensated for the loss of her husband, loss of services to her and the loss of companionship of her spouse.

7. The Plaintiff is entitled to be awarded such an amount as you believe will fairly and adequately compensate for the mental and physical pain, suffering and inconvenience that the Decedent endured from the moment of his injury to the moment of his death as a result of this accident.

8. You are to add each item of damages together in its proper category and return your verdict.

If you would like to see a sample report of the results you can expect from your OnlineVerdict.com study, please view the “OnlineVerdict.com Sample Report” found on the “How It Works” page of the website.

OnlineVerdict.com users may also have an experienced jury consultant conduct a case review or analyze juror feedback results from your OnlineVerdict.com study. We can also provide assistance with:

• Case strategy • Jury selection

• Theme development • Jury profiling

• Voir dire • Graphics

• Mock trial research

For more information contact us:Chicago Office: (630) 406-8206

San Diego Office: (858) 675-7557info@onlineverdict.com