Empirical Jury Case and Jury Analytics

Big Data Statistical Analysis Meets Trial Law

Empiricial Jury uses statistical regression analaysis on large data sets to find trends that you can use to win.

Client Firms







$797 M

Proud recepient of Missouri Lawyers Weekly's Top Legal Innovation Award for New Services and Products in 2019.
Article by Dana Rieck about her interview with John and Alicia.
Understanding Our Service
Scroll down to learn more about the contents of our reports and process. As you scroll and learn more, you’ll see a sample report to your right. It will move to reveal sections that correlate with the explanations. We cannot share our proprietary reports online, but this preview is meant to help you see the level of detail and the readability of the report.
Benefits of Using Empirical Jury
Empirical Jury's Case and Jury Analytics improve on the mock trials and focus groups of the past by combining large data sets with statistical analysis to move beyond qualitative hunches to quantitative facts. By using hundreds of participants, instead of a handful, an accurate picture of the odds of winning and the likely awards can be predicted as well as the charateristics that make the best jourors can be identified.
Large Samples

What if you flipped a coin ten times and used the results to predict the ratio of heads to tails? You could get the answer drastically wrong.

Even if you flipped the coin 50 times, you could have the same result, as shown below. But as you flip the coin more, you wash out the randomness and get estimates that are much closer to 50/50. You might miss by a percent or two, but never ten.

In a very basic way, this illustrates two things: 1) Small samples are dangerous. They produce unreliable results and 2) Big samples cure the problem and provide estimates that can be relied on.

But far too often, attorneys rely on small samples as their only source of information. This either means they can’t take the win rate, average damages, fault allocation and more seriously – or worse, they take it seriously and rely on flawed data.

Heads 2 out of 10 times = estimate of 20%

Heads 33 out of 50 times = estimate of 66%

Heads 62 out of 100 times = estimate of 62%

Heads 180 out of 350 times = estimate of 51.4%

Who are these jurors?
Because we draw from an inclusive population, we get a diverse sample of jurors. We then report the sample profile to our clients. Our goal is to get enough jurors, even in underrepresented populations, that we can analyze whether they behave differently from others. For example, we often have over 40 jurors who only graduated high school, and another 40 who have a graduate degree. That is like having two focus groups of each. We will also have jurors of all ages, backgrounds, belief systems, and political orientations. We can slice and dice our data along those various differences. We can then compare how those groups perform compared to one another, and compared to the “average juror.” This process of “jury analytics” lets us find the most valuable - and most dangerous jurors.
How do we make sure the data is meaningful?

Data quality is essential, otherwise the results are junk. So, we leave nothing to chance.

We employ tools and practices in data collection that are standard as well as some proprietary techniques. The standard practices include:
  • Embedded Attention Checks to ensure participants are reading everything dilligently
  • Comprehension Questions to make sure workers fully understood the case materials
  • Repeating Questions to ensure participants are answering honestly and not randomly
  • Captchas to catch bots
  • Highly Rated Workers based on scoring shared between survey companies
  • VPN detection and Written Communication Scoring to detect foreign workers
  • Participation Frequency Limits to ensure our participants do not become 'Professional Mock Jurors'
  • Reputation, we pay fairly but have a high bar for workers. They know to work for us they have to give us their best.
  • Scale and Volume, we have 61700 Responses from 22030 Unique Workers over the last 3 Years and 3 Months

What can you learn about case value and strength?

Empirical Jury can A/B test the case to find which configurations result in the highest win rate and case valuations. This chart shows the win rate when the case is presented with only one defendant doctor or with two. The attorney here learned that both defendants needed to remain in the case to have a realistic chance of winning at trial. Dismissing one doctor dramatically changed the case, making it almost unwinnable.

What could we learn about how demands impact liability rates and awards?

These charts all relate to damages. In this case, we manipulated the amount requested for noneconomic damages. The top right chart shows that as the demand increased, the win rate (percentage of jurors finding liability) fell. This helped us identify the risk of a larger request. The second chart (box chart) shows that the higher demand produced higher overall awards. The final chart (the curve) combines the win rate with awards in an attempt to find the sweet spot (Goldilocks zone) where the plaintiff’s request achieves the highest anchoring effect while not damaging case value due to a decreased win rate.

What can you learn about what jurors value?

Big data lets us identify which issues jurors cared most about. For example, here we see that jurors cared more about post-operative care than they did the potential negligence during surgery. This helps attorneys decide how to spend their time at trial. It also sorts key issues from red herrings, or issues that matter to attorneys but not jurors.

What types of case strategy can you test?

This chart shows the jurur's response to the statement "I believe the plaintiff's testimony". It shows the percentage of jurors who found a critical witness for the plaintiff believable. It also measures how jurors voted that held those beliefs. Green boxes mean the jurors were above average on liability and damages. Red boxes mean they were below. Here, 55% of jurors did NOT believe the witness. And those jurors found liability 54% less than average and were 73% less valuable. Before seeing these results, the attorney planned to feature this witness. That approach would have isolated over ½ of the jurors. The attorney was able to change his approach, building his case with other witnesses.

What can you learn about jurors?

We can also use big samples and statistics to find the best and worst jurors for a case. We report statistically significant differences in case value by jurors. To do this, we compare subgroups to the average. This is critical information in jury selection. For example, in this case, the attorney could improve jury selection using a variety of information ranging from characteristics to TV viewing habits to whether people live with their parents.

What can you learn about jurors?

The graphs show demographic trends. Put simply, as age increases, the win rate and overall damages increase (in this case).

Our pricing is case specific. We work hard to meet most attorneys budgets by modifying study length and complexity. But, given the number of jurors we recruit, it is typically not feasible to work on cases that have an estimated value of less than $400,000.

Although we cannot give an estimated price without seeing the project, we can tell you that our per juror cost is typically under $50, while in person focus groups range between $200 and $2,000. These savings are made by being able to pay jurors for exactly the time they are needed and not a minute more. Our jurors don't have to commute, you don't buy them danish or coffee, and they are only paid if they participate fully and prove they have paid attention.

The result is less cost for more information.

We also set a fixed price for your project after we meet with you and understand your case. There is no price inflation. There is no hourly billing. You'll know the price and have a chance to approve it before we start our work.

Also, when we understand the case well and can evaluate it, we take a select number of cases on a contingency. The price of our work is set by the outcome. In those settings, we often run multiple studies with the attorney to refine the case. We can discuss this option with you if you are interested.

How does this actually work? What does the lawyer have to do? How long does it take?

The process occurs in two phases.

Phase I involves talking with you about your case and understanding it better. You will always and only speak with John Campbell or Alicia Campbell, both trial lawyers with experience. The goal is to understand the case so that, together, we can design the best study possible to learn the most about your case. We want to answer the burning questions you have.

You, the attorney, makes the first draft of the "clopening" - a combination of the evidence and the framing. Then we work with you to make sure it is complete. When we all agree that we have captured the case and given the other side their very best day, Phase I is done. The final presentation is usually a combination of text, images, and video.

From there, you can rest easy while we go to work in Phase II. Unlike traditional focus groups, you won't need to attend, present, or travel.

In Phase II we build the study, we recruit the jurors, gather the data, analyze it using proprietary code, produce the report, and share it with you.

Phase I has sometimes been completed in one (sleepless) day. It is not ideal. We prefer to work with you over a period of a week or two to get the presentation together. Phase II takes 8-10 days.