Michael Alder

Watch a mock jury selection exercise based on the automobile accident fact pattern, designed to prevent cause challenges from sympathy and emotional leanings and attitudes about money, pain, and personal responsibility:

Case Title: Alvarez v. Talbot Technologies, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sophia Alvarez, a schoolteacher, was driving her younger sister Camila home when a luxury SUV driven by Derek Talbot, the founder of a high-profile tech startup, ran a red light and crashed into their car. Camila is now partially paralyzed.

Mr. Talbot had detectable alcohol in his system, though not above the legal limit. He admitted he was distracted and “tired.” His company is a co-defendant because he was driving a company-owned vehicle at the time, and it is alleged the company allowed him to use it for personal purposes after drinking.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for lifelong medical care, pain and suffering, and emotional harm. There is no dispute that the crash caused severe injury. The core issues for the jury are responsibility and damages.

This mock jury selection focuses on identifying:

1. Attitudes Toward Pain and Money:

• Some jurors believe “you can’t put a price on pain”—and may therefore resist awarding any substantial figure.
• Others feel that emotional or non-economic damages are easily exaggerated or abused.
• The goal is to uncover those biases and explore whether jurors are willing to fairly consider substantial awards for invisible injuries like PTSD or lifelong physical limitations.

2. Emotional Reactions to Parties:

• How do jurors emotionally react to a young woman who suffered a visible, life-changing injury?
• Does the fact that the defendant is a wealthy entrepreneur, possibly seen as reckless or entitled, color their view of the case?
• Will some jurors be sympathetic to a young defendant who made a mistake and is now being sued for millions?
• Are there jurors who view lawsuits against big companies or wealthy individuals as “cash grabs” or unjustified punishment?

Key Learning Objectives:

• Practice uncovering hidden juror biases against awarding non-economic damages.
• Identify jurors whose emotional responses may cloud objectivity—either by over-identifying with a sympathetic plaintiff or reacting against a defendant due to wealth, privilege, or perceived recklessness.
• Learn to frame pain, suffering, and accountability in terms that neutralize cynicism and highlight personal responsibility.