Hi, my name is Rick Jarolem I’m a partner at the law firm of Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens & O’Connell in West Palm Beach, Florida, and we have used Magnus Research on several occasions and are extremely pleased by their work.
In particular, what Magnus Research does is they help the practitioner and the litigator focus the issues, focus the voir dire, focus the witness selection, and focus the arguments to be made in trial. I’ve been involved in two cases in particular where Magnus Research was used to help us with these issues. The first matter was a marina case involving property in the city of West Palm Beach, and what we were able to glean, from what Magnus provided us was, in the sample jury there were strengths in our case which although we identified, we did not truly appreciate how strong those arguments were, as well as weaknesses in our case that we didn’t quite identify how weak we were. By using the jury simulations, we were able to cull out and develop arguments in a much stronger, much clearer, much more concise fashion, which resonated with the jury on the strengths, and we were able to address the weaknesses in the arguments, to minimize the hesitation on a jury. Magnus, in connection with that case, also provided us with a demographic breakdown of jurors that we would potentially be looking for with regards to age, education, business background, overall general sophistication. They also helped us with regard to voir dire questioning that would allow us to cull out potential biases, as well as people who would be most receptive to the arguments that we were making.
The second case I was involved in, using Magnus Research, was a professional liability case involving legal malpractice. We did two jury simulations in that, and as well, the information that Magnus gave us was invaluable to us in preparation. What we noticed in using Magnus in both instances, is that although we had a very good idea on our cases, our strengths and our weaknesses, Magnus at all times, helped us develop strengths, to become even stronger, and helped us identify weaknesses, which we could address, or helped us find subject matter that we had not otherwise really thought of. In particular what we noticed in the jury simulations, in the professional malpractice was the juries were picking up on arguments, either completely that we had not really developed, and that they were also definitely receptive to. So as we honed our argument in strength and we did the second jury simulation we were much stronger in our presentation, much clearer in our presentation, and also more concise in the way we were bringing the jury evidence. As a result the trial went probably much shorter, much smoother and the jury came to the proper verdict, much quicker than otherwise would have been, had we not used Magnus.