Child death cases occupy a unique and complicated space in civil litigation. They combine profound emotional weight with complex medical and difficult factual questions, often against the backdrop of jurors' instinctive belief that someone must be held responsible. In that environment, even a strong defense can unravel quickly, damages can inflate rapidly, and moral judgment can eclipse legal standards.
Mock trials are one of the most effective tools for managing that risk. Not just because they predict verdicts with precision, but because they reveal how jurors actually process evidence, emotion, blame, and responsibility in cases where grief and outrage are ever present. When conducted properly, mock trials provide critical intelligence that motions, focus groups, and internal case assessments cannot replicate.
Preparation is Not Optional
The single most important factor in a successful mock trial is preparation. A mock trial cannot be improvised. It must be treated as a real trial to provide the results and information practitioners seek. "Winging it" produces noise, not insight. To generate usable data, counsel must be thoughtful and intentional about what evidence is presented, how it is framed, and just as importantly, what is excluded.
Time is money in a mock trial. Setting, testimony, and exhibits must be narrowed aggressively to the most relevant issues. Favorable evidence that is unlikely to be admitted at trial should be omitted. The goal is not to test the best version of the case, but the most realistic.
This approach aligns with empirical research showing that lawyers frequently underestimate exposure in emotionally charged cases, particularly where severe injury or death is involved.[i] Mock trials function as a corrective to that overconfidence by forcing counsel to confront how the case is perceived outside the defense conference room.
Build the Right Jury Pool or the Results Are Meaningless
A mock trial is only as good as its panel. Trial consultants should recruit a local jury pool that reflects a true cross-section of the community, including variation in age, race, marital, and parental status, education, and occupation.
This matters acutely in child-death cases. Jurors' lived experiences- especially around parenting, caregiving, and loss- shape how they interpret both facts and motives. Research in legal psychology confirms that jurors bring powerful pre-existing narratives to cases involving vulnerable victims, which can dominate deliberations if not identified early.[ii]
When budget allows, using more than one jury panel is invaluable. Panels can vary dramatically, and observing different group dynamics provides insight into how persuasion, pressure, and leadership operate during deliberations. Those dynamics often matter more than any single juror's initial reaction.
Let Jurors See the Witnesses
Whenever possible, depositions should be videotaped and used in the mock trial. Jurors need to see how witnesses present. Lawyers should take time to notice their demeanor, tone, confidence, defensiveness, and relatability. Research consistently shows that credibility assessments are driven as much by presentation as by substance.[iii]
This is particularly important in child death cases, where jurors are acutely sensitive to perceived indifference, or lack of empathy. Mock trials allow counsel to assess those reactions before deciding who should testify and how.
Emotion Drives Decision-Making in Child Death Cases
Decades of jury research confirm what trial lawyers already know. Emotion plays a disproportionate role, and understandably so, in cases involving catastrophic injury or death, especially when it involves a child.[iv]Jurors in these cases frequently engage in moral reasoning alongside, or sometimes instead of, legal analysis.
Scholars have often found that jurors evaluate whether an outcome feels "acceptable" or "just," and the fit the evidence into that conclusion. [v] Mock trials expose precisely when that shift occurs.
Rather than ignoring emotion, effective mock trials help counsel identify:
- Which moments trigger moral judgment.
- Which arguments calm or inflame juror reactions,
- How to acknowledge loss without amplifying blame.
Blame, Causation, and the Parental Minefield
Few defense arguments are more perilous than those touching on parental conduct. Even when legally relevant, such arguments can be perceived as cruel or evasive, particularly if jurors believe the defense is shifting responsibility onto grieving parents.
Social-psychology research on attribution bias explains why. People are deeply uncomfortable with tragic outcomes that lack a clear cause, and they often collapse causation into moral blame when the victim is a child. Jurors may punish defendants simply to ensure that someone has been held accountable.
Mock trials provide a controlled environment to test:
- Whether jurors can separate causation from blame.
- How different phrasing affects receptivity.
- Whether the argument is worth the risk at all.
In some cases, the data will show that even a technically correct argument is strategically unwise.
Jurors Struggle With Complexity
Child death cases frequently involve complex medical timelines, competing expert opinions, and nuanced causation theories. Research consistently shows that jurors overestimate their understanding of technical evidence and rely instead on narrative coherence, or what "makes sense" to them.[vi] Studies summarized by the American Bar Association and others confirm that jurors often substitute story logic for scientific accuracy when evidence becomes dense or confusing.[vii] Mock trials reveal:
- Where jurors misunderstand medical evidence.
- Which facts they want but never hear.
- Which points may be clear to counsel but not the jurors.
That information is essential for refining theories, demonstratives and expert testimony.
Deliberations Are Where Cases Are Won or Lost
Initial juror reactions are unstable. Research on jury deliberations shows that group dynamics can rapidly shift outcomes, particularly in emotionally charged cases.[viii] Dominant personalities, moral framing, and early consensus on "responsibility" often dictate final verdicts.
This is why deliberation time is sacred in a mock trial. Extended deliberations allow counsel to observe:
- Who leads and who follows.
- Which arguments survive group scrutiny.
- Which jurors withstand pressure and which capitulate.
Studies summarized by the National Center for State Courts underscore that deliberation dynamics are a critical and frequently underestimated driver of verdicts and damages.[ix]
Damages Anchoring and Exposure Assessment
Behavioral economics research has repeatedly demonstrated the power of anchoring. This means that once jurors hear a large number, it becomes a reference point, even if liability is contested.[x] This is especially important in child death cases, where damages are often viewed as a proxy for moral accountability rather than pure compensation.
Mock trials help identify:
- When thinking about damages begins.
- Whether jurors link damages to punishment.
- Realistic best and worst case verdict ranges.
This information is indispensable for advising clients in mediation, particularly in an era of increasingly unpredictable jury verdicts.
Conclusion: Mock Trials as Ethical Risk Management
Mock trials in child death cases are not about theatrics. They are about discipline, humility, and informed advocacy. They integrate trial experience with well-established research on juror psychology, group dynamics, and cognitive bias.
By revealing how jurors process grief, blame, complexity, and responsibility, mock trials allow counsel to:
- Refine trial strategy.
- Assess witness risks,
- Identify true exposure points.
- Provide clients with realistic settlement advice.
In cases where emotion can overwhelm evidence, this insight is not optional, it is essential.
___________________
[i] Salerno, Jessica. The Impact of Experienced and Expressed Emotion on Legal Factfinding. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2021. 17:181–203.
[ii] Curley, Lee; Munro, James. Dror, E. Itiel. Cognitive and Human Factors in Legal Layperson Decision-Making: Sources of Bias in Juror Decision-Making. Med. Sci. Law. 2022 Feb 17;62(3):206–215.
[iii] York, Drew. Why Videotaped Deposition Testimony can be More Powerful than Live Witnesses. JD Supra, July 3, 2017.
[iv] Hans, Valerie P., The Illusions and Realities of Jurors' Treatment of Corporate Defendants, 48 DePaul L.Rev. 327 (1998).
[v] 10 Biases That Affect Jury Verdicts. Jury Analysis. (March 16, 2025).
[vi] Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997). What Social Science Teaches Us About the Jury Instruction Process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(4), 589–644.
[vii] New Study Reveals How Juries Think and Behave. American Bar Association. September 2017.
[viii] Gordon, Sara, "All Together Now: Using Principles of Group Dynamics to Train Better Jurors" (2015). Scholarly Works. 896.
[ix] Paula Hannaford-Agor, JD; Hope Forbush, JD; Miriam Hamilton, MS; Jawwaad Johnson, MA; Morgan Moffett, MPP. Preserving the Future of Juries and Jury Trials. December 2024.
[x] John Campbell, Bernard Chao, Christopher Robertson & David V. Yokum, Countering the Plaintiff’s Anchor: Jury Simulations to Evaluate Damages Arguments, 101 Iowa Law Review 543 (2016).
