Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Reptiles Revisited: Lizards Don’t Label [updated]

It turns out that insur­ance defense lawyers are putting at least some effort into find­ing new ways to try cases. They have a mag­a­zine, For the Defense, and an asso­ci­ated blog (sadly uncommented-on). Kathy Cochran, writ­ing on the blog, takes note of David Ball and Don Keenan’s Rep­tile:

This book posits that jurors must be con­vinced that a ver­dict for the plain­tiff will make the com­mu­nity safer because it will pre­vent the defen­dant or oth­ers sim­i­larly sit­u­ated from harm­ing the juror, his fam­ily, or some­one close to him.

As defense lawyers, we need to rec­og­nize this for what it is. It is an attempt to res­ur­rect Golden Rule argu­ments, which are usu­ally imper­mmis­si­ble. Jurors are not to be asked to put them­selves in the place of a party and make a judg­ment based on that vir­tual real­ity. Ball and Keene pro­vide advice to their read­ers on how to cir­cum­vent this evi­den­tiary rule. They pro­vide numer­ous exam­ples of tac­tics that will appeal to the “rep­til­ian” brains of jurors, ask­ing them to put them­selves in the same posi­tion as the plain­tiff — a posi­tion of jeop­ardy that calls upon sur­vival instincts.

.…

I would sug­gest that defense lawyers obtain and read this trea­tise so as to rec­og­nize these “rev­o­lu­tion­ary” argu­ments. I invite any­one read­ing this blog to com­ment with ideas or case law that might under­mine this new court­room strategy.

One idea to under­mine the “Rep­tile” court­room strat­egy was demon­strated by two insur­ance defense lawyers in DeKalb County, Geor­gia last month. Try­ing a case against Don Keenan (one of the authors of Rep­tile), the defense lawyers (W. Win­ston Briggs and Matthew G. Moffett):

read from the book and referred to it dur­ing clos­ing arguments.One of their Pow­er­Point slides read, “Let’s see if we can scare them/It could have been any­one killed out there … because it’s a pub­lic dan­ger there … but if you give us $ that will some­how elim­i­nate this danger/They call this their ‘rep­tile’ strategy.”

(Law.com)

[Update: Matthew Mof­fett writes:

In our GA trial, we never read to the jury from attor­ney Don Keenan’s rep­tile book.  In fact, we never had that book with us in the court­room and never men­tioned that Keenan wrote that book.

What we had with us at trial was another book edited by Keenan and con­tain­ing a tran­script of one of his sam­ple clos­ing argu­ments for a plain­tiff.  We never told the jury Keenan edited that book nor did we dis­play it to the jury.  Rather, we told the jury that Mr. Keenan might make an argu­ment on dam­ages like this (then we read the fol­low­ing from his clos­ing argu­ment tran­script):  “there are eight quar­ter­backs that make more than $5,000,000 a year to carry a foot­ball” and “there are peo­ple that pay $5,000,000 for a race­horse or a paint­ing.”  We told the jury that such argu­ments and com­par­isons had noth­ing to do with the case they were hearing.

While we did men­tion the strat­egy called rep­tile, we never talked about that book or that Keenan wrote it.

Thanks a lot, law.com!]

I wrote in Lizards Don’t Laugh about get­ting jurors out of their rep­tile brains and into their higher brains by reveal­ing the sur­prises in the case and mak­ing the jurors laugh (laugh­ter being the phys­i­o­log­i­cal sig­nal that we are no longer being gov­erned by our rep­tile brains). There I wrote:

First, the government’s Rep­tile Trial is a Things-That-Go-Bump-In-The-Night Trial. Things that go bump in the night can seem silly in the light of day, and the government’s per­ceived threat can seem silly to the mam­malian brain.

I don’t, as a mat­ter of prin­ci­ple, side with the insur­ance defense lawyers—like pros­e­cu­tors, they’re rep­re­sent­ing insti­tu­tions against humans—but I’m not shy about learn­ing from them. What Briggs and Mof­fett demon­strated in DeKalb County was one way to shine light on the rep­tile trial: name it.

Wav­ing Keenan’s book around in the trial is improper argu­ment for a slew of rea­sons (out­side the record, for a really big one), but the prin­ci­ple of putting a name on the adversary’s strategy—pulling back the cur­tain and nam­ing the lit­tle man pulling the levers—is a sound one.

Our lizard brain evolved to deal with imme­di­ate threats, things that have to be dealt with right away—the crack of a twig in the night, glow­ing eyes in the dark, the wind of a stoop­ing hawk. When we have enough infor­ma­tion and leisure time put a name on the threat we take it out of the purview of the rep­tile brain and hand if off to be processed and dealt with by our higher brains, with their facil­i­ties of plan­ning, crit­i­cal thought, and compassion.

When we name the adversary’s strat­egy, we invite the jury to respond, in other words, as human beings.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

6 Responses to “Reptiles Revisited: Lizards Don’t Label [updated]”

  1. Bob Torp says:

    It seems to me that in the crim­i­nal defense con­text, pros­e­cu­tors have long rec­og­nized (though not iden­ti­fied) the rep­tile brain as a moti­va­tor of juries. They com­monly imply or express that the defen­dant must be put away as a dan­ger to the vic­tim and to the com­mu­nity as a whole. How­ever, we can point out to the repilil­lan brain of the jurors that they are in dan­ger of being accused by the gov­ern­ment and put away them­selves by over charg­ing and shaky evi­dence. Granted that is not as per­sua­sive as “put him in jail or you and your fam­ily will die” — it is some­thing. I think there is a cert­ian level of fear of the gov­ern­ment among the pub­lic that we can use to our advan­tage. The Con­sti­tu­tion was cre­ated based on a legit­i­mate fear of a overly strong and oppres­sive gov­ern­ment. Inter­est­ingly, it seems that those that cry “free­dom” the loud­est are often the very same peo­ple that want a strong oppres­sive gov­ern­ment to deal with every­one but them. Just some thouhts.

    • Mark Bennett says:

      It seems to me that in the crim­i­nal defense con­text, pros­e­cu­tors have long rec­og­nized (though not iden­ti­fied) the rep­tile brain as a moti­va­tor of juries. They com­monly imply or express that the defen­dant must be put away as a dan­ger to the vic­tim and to the com­mu­nity as a whole.

      You mean “Pros­e­cu­tors use some­thing like it in every jury trial—make the jurors afraid, then give them a way to be safer—though prob­a­bly with­out real­iz­ing that they [are] appeal­ing to the rep­tile brain.”?

      I couldn’t have said it bet­ter myself!

  2. Jeff Gamso says:

    Good grief! It’s an insur­ance defense blog that forced me to put my name in the title of mine?

    I sup­pose I can’t sue on the basis of that they’re devalu­ing my name, can I? Espe­cially since they were using it first.

  3. Lee Stonum says:

    I had missed the prior post. I like the idea of call­ing it out, going to use this in my next gang trial.

  4. How do they men­tion the strat­egy called Rep­tile and link it to Keenan’s clos­ing with­out dis­cussing a whole lot of irrel­e­vant infor­ma­tion? Any way you slice this it sounds like the defense attor­neys, clever as they were, swung well out­side the scope of the trial record in dis­cussing these issues in their closing.

  5. David Hehn says:

    You lawyers live in a bub­ble. But I truly appre­ci­ate the con­tent on of this page, as I think the type lf lawyer attracted to this kind of con­ver­sa­tion is likely one of higher mind.

    Our judi­cial sys­tem is a total joke. It needs com­plete over­haul­ing. The idea that we have old, bald men parad­ing around mak­ing mil­lions of dol­lars train­ing peo­ple how to psy­cho­log­i­cally manip­u­late people’s lower minds under­mines the very foun­da­tion of civ­i­lized soci­ety. I find these guys much more dan­ger­ous than any sex offender or gang member.

    My rep­til­ian brain appeals to you: Please stop these dan­ger­ous lawyers from destroy­ing Amer­ica. You see, this desired “call-of-the-lizard” psy­cho­log­i­cal effect is already ubiq­ui­tous in the par­a­digm of aver­age Amer­i­cans. We are the most para­noid coun­try on earth. And I’m not say­ing that for hyperbole’s sake, but rather am stat­ing it def­i­nitely. It effects life in a very sub­tle way on many lev­els of our daily existence.

    Help expose this BullPlop, Guys! Good on ya!

Leave a non-anonymous Reply