Picking Justice

A juror who says they won't award money for pain and suffering only becomes a cause challenge if that answer holds up when the judge or defense tries to rehabilitate them. Steve Vartazarian, founder of The Vartazarian Law Firm, shares with hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer the simple questions he uses to lock those jurors in, and why he stops short of pushing them too far. He also explains why he welcomes jurors' worst answers, why he calls it "human harm" instead of pain and suffering, and the one line about damages that jurors love to hear. Tune in for jury selection techniques to use in your next voir dire.Learn More and Connect☑️ Steve Vartazarian | LinkedIn☑️ The Vartazarian Law Firm | LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPods

Some of the toughest jurors aren't the ones to strike; they're the ones to win over. Joe Fried, an Atlanta trial lawyer with Fried Goldberg who has tried cases in 43 states, builds his approach around what jurors share rather than what divides them. He joins hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer to unpack what turns skepticism into trust: modeling "shockingly vulnerable" honesty, framing a case around a juror's oath, and running a voir dire that surfaces the universal values a case is really about. Joe also explains why he now drops his exact damages number in his opening, and why less is more when arguing them. Tune in for practical takeaway on inclusive jury selection.Learn More and Connect☑️ Joe Fried | LinkedIn☑️ Fried Goldberg | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram | X☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPods

Most jurors haven't decided how they feel about giving millions for pain and suffering until the trial's nearly over — so how do you spot the ones who never will? In this deep dive, hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer unpack the "Health Is Wealth" question sequence Harry uses to surface which jurors value non-economic damages. They dig into the counterintuitive power of telling jurors the money isn't meant to help, how to read jurors who dodge or push back on open-ended questions, and the tricky calculus of brain-injury cases and waiving future care. Tune in for a practical playbook on making quality of life feel like real wealth to a jury.Learn More and Connect☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPods

Federal court voir dire is often "judicial speed dating" — sometimes just 25 minutes to question 55 strangers. Brett Schreiber of Singleton Schreiber pulled it off before landing a landmark verdict against Tesla, and he joins hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer to unpack how he picks juries under brutal time pressure. Brett shares his "two cups and a pitcher of blame" framing for shared-responsibility cases, why he primes reluctant jurors to say "yes" before diving in, and why emotional intelligence and reading the room beat any rigid script. He also explains why a story of betrayal is the most powerful motivator for jurors. Tune in for a masterclass in high-stakes jury selection. Learn More and Connect☑️ Brett Schreiber | LinkedIn☑️ Singleton Schreiber | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | X☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPods

Most trial lawyers walk into voir dire with a script and a checklist. Throw both out, says Mel Orchard of the Spence Law Firm in Wyoming, a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates. He opens instead by asking jurors whether anything affected them on the way in that morning — then stays silent for a long time. Talking with hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer, Mel explains why preconditioning doesn't work, why he no longer lets the panel debate the case in real time, how a personal share draws the poison out of a tough case, and how he preconditions jurors to tens of millions of dollars in voir dire using David Ball's framework. Learn More and Connect☑️ Mel C. Orchard | LinkedIn☑️ Spence Law Firm | LinkedIn | Facebook | X☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPods, a podcast marketing agency for law firms