For trial attorneys, winning a court case transcends presenting evidence and examining witnesses. The real battle rages in the minds of the individuals called to jury duty, where perceptions of credibility and trust often determine the outcome before deliberations even begin.

The more trials and mock jury deliberations I listen carefully to and the more actual jury members I interview after trials have ended, the more I’ve come to realize that winning the battle of credibility is an essential part of winning over your jurors, and this is something that master attorneys understand well–earn your jurors’ trust or lose your case.

When your jurors don't trust you and your case, all the facts, evidence and expert witnesses in the world won't convince them to rule in your favor.

As I’ve said time and again, incredible points and stellar witnesses don’t build credibility for you; you have to create that trust early on in the trial, or your jurors will have already decided not to trust those great facts by the time you finally present them. Using direct questions during voir dire can help establish this trust by talking about jurors' concerns head-on.

Earning credibility and trust in the court room, and doing it early on, is the foundation for winning a trial. I can’t stress enough that you need to get your jurors to trust you, and especially what you’ll be arguing for, by the midpoint of your opening statement. Build credibility early or lose—there is no middle ground.

Building Trust with the Jury in Voir Dire

Building trust in jury selection is even better. There are several ways, large and small, to build trust during voir dire.

• Come across as friendly and personable in an authentic way. Learning how to be you is a critical piece of this.

• Show the jurors with your questions that you want to LISTEN to them, not lecture to them.

• Demonstrate that you understand all the points of view your jurors express, not just those who agree with you and your case.

When you show patience and understanding with potential jurors who disagree with you, the rest of the jurors get the impression that you're reasonable; when you argue with them, ignore them, or struggle to understand them, you'll lose the rest of the jurors' trust.

Jury selection offers countless opportunities to build credibility. This article zeroes in on the most powerful trust-building technique in voir dire—"tackling the elephant in the room." By confronting unspoken concerns directly, attorneys can demolish barriers to trust before they become permanent obstacles.

Don't Shy Away from the Elephant in the Room

To win at trial (and, therefore, to win over the members of your jury), you must convince the jurors that your case makes sense and fits their values.

Not every case is a natural fit for most jurors’ common sense, and many cases clash with their values. Unless you have a slam-dunk case or pick the perfect jury, you’ll have to deal with jurors who have immediate doubts and substantial concerns about your case.

An experienced attorney knows how to address these concerns effectively and accurately during the trial.

If you’re suing an employer for retaliation or discrimination, the elephant in the room is often the employer’s valid-sounding reason for firing the plaintiff. How can your jurors blame the employer if it sounds like your employee deserved to be fired?

When you’re defending a company accused of trade secret misappropriation, patent or trademark infringement, or intellectual property theft, the elephant in the room is usually the idea of stealing. Most jurors are raised to immediately see stealing, copying, and cheating as wrong, no matter what the law says.

In wrongful death cases, the elephant in the room is usually the point of awarding damages; most jurors are wondering, “What good would awarding money do if it won’t bring the victim back? or “Why does the victim’s family deserve to collect?”

Prospective jurors start forming doubts about your case the moment they hear the judge's outline and your voir dire questions. These unaddressed concerns silently undermine your credibility and color how jurors perceive every piece of evidence throughout the trial.

Left unchallenged, these elephants dominate the courtroom. Most jurors lack either the courage or self-awareness to admit they've already decided your case is unwinnable. When attorneys directly ask this question, some jurors actually confess they can't imagine a way you can win this case. These hidden biases don't announce themselves—they must be deliberately exposed.

Most jurors won’t say what they’re thinking, but trust me—they’re thinking, “How in the world is this lawyer going to explain that?”

Ignoring these elephants only magnifies their presence. Jurors who sense you're sidestepping case weaknesses or preparing to advocate positions they find implausible have already withdrawn their trust. Once jurors detect avoidance tactics, your credibility evaporates before your case truly begins.

How to Identify and Overcome Juror Doubts and Concerns

Step back from your case to see it through outside eyes. Consult colleagues, friends, focus groups—whatever reveals the blind spots. Identify the most glaring weakness that jurors will instantly recognize. Then boldly address it during voir dire. Draw out jurors' concerns, create space for them to voice doubts, and make the uncomfortable comfortable.

Understanding potential jurors' mindsets proves essential to neutralizing their skepticism. These doubts already exist in their minds—avoiding them won't make them disappear. Demonstrate genuine interest in hearing their concerns rather than hiding from them. Simply initiating this conversation builds trust because it defies jurors' expectations that attorneys conceal case weaknesses. When you willingly discuss potential problems, jurors often conclude these issues might be less significant than initially assumed. Transparency becomes your strategic advantage."

Then comes the important part—once you've talked about and framed their concerns, show them how your case is different from other cases.

When you demonstrate genuine understanding of jurors' concerns, trust begins to form. By acknowledging their doubts as legitimate—not dismissing them—you position yourself as refreshingly honest. The power lies not in simple agreement, but in creating a crucial distinction between the flawed case they fear and the compelling case you'll present.

Effective voir dire transforms skeptical jurors into open listeners. By surfacing concerns, you invite jurors to grant you permission to advocate in ways they would want if they were your client. This isn't manipulation—it's setting the stage for authentic communication. When jurors see you acknowledge their hesitations directly, they gain permission to consider perspectives they wouldn't normally entertain. This creates space for your truthful, compelling theory of the case to be truly heard rather than reflexively dismissed.

Distance Yourself from Jury Concerns to Differentiate Your Case

So now comes the most challenging part—winning your jury members over by distancing your case from their concerns and by framing your argument in a way that makes sense, that fits their values, and that they’ll agree with.

Following the judge's instructions is crucial in ensuring that jurors understand their role and responsibilities. Unfortunately, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to tailoring your case to your jurors’ concerns and values that I can summarize in a paragraph, so the rest is up to you.

One way to re-frame your case for your jurors is to listen to their concerns and then talk to them about exceptions to their “rules.”

If your jurors can’t imagine how a careful driver could have struck a pedestrian, ask them if they can think of any exceptions. You should always be able to spot and stop for a pedestrian unless,

• They dart into the street unexpectedly?

• They cross in an unexpected spot, like outside of the crosswalk or on a highway?

• They cross on a dark road in the middle of the night without any reflective clothing?

The behavior and perspective of one juror can significantly influence the entire jury's decision-making process.

If you’re suing for fraud, but jurors have issues with plaintiffs who failed to do their due diligence, ask, “Can you think of anything that might make it more difficult, or even impossible, for a buyer to get information or answers to their questions?”

Getting your jurors thinking and talking about exceptions to their concerns can send the message that your case might be different.

Success in the courtroom demands your ability to truly hear your jurors' concerns, grasp their definition of common sense (not yours), understand their value system, and earn their trust by adapting your presentation to resonate with their worldview.

The jury's final decision largely depends on how effectively their concerns have been acknowledged and addressed throughout the proceedings.

Proceeding with predetermined trial themes that conflict with your jurors' perspectives is a recipe for failure. Their concerns cannot be dismissed.

Be prepared to dynamically adjust your trial themes, opening statement, case values, and overall presentation strategy based on insights gained during jury selection.