Steve Tuholski, Ph.D. Yesterday at a mock trial, I watched a capable defense lawyer talk himself out of verdicts he should have won. He was prepared, he knew the record cold, and he had built a demonstrative for nearly every point he intended to make. Boards, blowups, a physical model, a timeline that unfolded like a stage set. Each one of them was well made. Together they buried him. When the jurors deliberated, not one of them complained about having too many exhibits. That

A trial consultant who only agrees with you is a liability, not an asset. My clients do not hire me to admire their case. They built it. They believe in it. By the time I arrive, the trial team has usually lived with their theory for months and stopped seeing its seams. That is exactly the problem I am paid to help solve. My job is to find what the trial team may no longer see clearly. The weakness they have grown numb to. The evidence that reads one way at counsel table and

We are living in a simulation. A recent episode of the Modern Wisdom podcast opened with that position, and the guest, Harvard social scientist Arthur Brooks, gave it a nuanced turn that I found interesting. His position was that so much of modern life has become mediated, performed, and experienced through a screen, and the one thing that cannot survive that translation is the things that matter most. Meaning and connection. It occurred to me that this should be relevant t

Steve Tuholsk, Ph.D. I get some version of this question fairly often: “How does someone from Texas pick a jury in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or any other West Coast venue?” Or East Coast Venue. Or Midwest. You get the point. It is a fair question, and I understand why lawyers ask it. Venue matters. Jurors in different communities may see cases differently. Local culture, politics, economics, industries, and community attitudes can all affect how lawyer

Steve Tuholsk, Ph.D. “Victory belongs to the most tenacious.” That quote is ubiquitous at Roland Garros, and as r the second week of the French Open begins today, it is a useful reminder of why the tournament is different. On red clay, the surface rewards patience, discipline, adaptation, and the ability to stay in the point longer than the person across the net. Trial lawyers, does this sound familiar? Contrary to popular culture, trials are rarely won because of a singular

Steve Tuholski, Ph.D. To shuffle, or not to shuffle. In Texas courts, that is often a very real question in jury selection. For most trial teams, the decision gets made under time pressure. Counsel looks at the panel order, scans the first few rows, compares that impression to what they know about the case, and makes a judgment call. Sometimes that judgment is sound. Sometimes it is just a feeling created by a few visible jurors at the front of the panel. The problem is that

Steve Tuholski, Ph.D. In litigation, the side that sees the terrain most clearly and formulates the most effective strategy based on that insight usually wins. That conviction is why I named my firm High Ground Litigation Consulting, and the name carries three meanings for me. The first is strategic. Perspective decides cases. A trial team that understands not only the evidence but also how jurors are likely to hear, interpret, resist, or use it to make sense of the case is b