Advertise on podcast: Picking Justice

The juror who looks worst on paper can end up delivering your biggest verdict. Jon Marko, a Detroit trial lawyer fresh off an $896 million verdict, has seen it happen more than once. While the defense in one of his trials ran AI searches on every juror, Jon stuck to quick social media checks, and he tells hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer why he wouldn't trust AI to pick his strikes. He also makes the case that repetition, not study, is what builds great voir dire. Tune in to hear how he handled a lawsuit-skeptical juror after using his last strike, and why she ended up leading the jury to a $36 million verdict. Learn More and Connect☑️ Jonathan R. Marko | LinkedIn | Instagram ☑️ Marko Law | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | TikTok | YouTube ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods

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 | YouTube Produced 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 | YouTube Produced 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 | YouTube Produced 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 | YouTube Produced 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 | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods, a podcast marketing agency for law firms

Imagine trying a case with clear liability and catastrophic damages, with each day of evidence going your way — and still walking away with a defense verdict. That 2018 loss shaped Nevada trial lawyer Kimball Jones' voir dire philosophy and the verdict run that's followed: at least 12 seven-figure verdicts plus multiple eight- and nine-figure results since 2019. Kimball joins hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer to unpack his approach — starting with the passions question to build rapport, signaling damages early in his mini opening, and addressing juror skepticism about trial lawyers head-on. Tune in for what jurors are really telling you when they claim no passions, and the surprising habit Kimball considers more important than any technique. Learn More and Connect☑️ Kimball Jones | LinkedIn ☑️ Bighorn Law | LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods Episode sponsored by Focus Graphics.

The way employment litigator Bernard Alexander sees it, the beauty of these cases is that most jurors are employees. At voir dire, the plaintiff’s lawyer’s job is to get jurors to slip into their client’s shoes. In this conversation with hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer, Bernard describes how he does that. His experience includes winning $136 million against Tesla in what was the largest single plaintiff harassment verdict in the U.S. at the time. “I get people talking,” he says. “But the people that aren't talking, those are the ones that I really want to talk to.” How? With direct questions like, “Has anyone here or someone you know ever experienced discrimination or harassment?” or, “Has anyone ever made any complaints inside the workplace about anything or know someone that has?’” Learn More and Connect☑️ Bernard Alexander | LinkedIn ☑️ Alexander Morrison + Fehr | LinkedIn | Facebook | X ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods Episode sponsored by Focus Graphics.

Some corporations may be “evil.” Others may be “heroes.” Good or bad, they’re made up of people. “Just saying ‘it's a company’ isn't enough. What company? What does the company do? And who are the people in the company?,” says Jennifer Keller, speaking from her experience going up against and representing companies. She recommends finding out what kind of company you’re representing – like the upstart with a doll that competed against Mattel – and what your corporate client actually does – like the company trying to protect its pioneering colon cancer detecting process. She won $170 million against Mattel and $300 million for the cancer detection company. Tune in to this conversation with hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer for her insights about humanizing corporate clients, evaluating every juror individually rather than relying on demographic assumptions, and eliminating “cagey jurors.” Learn More and Connect☑️Jennifer Keller | LinkedIn ☑️ Keller Anderle Scolnick LLP | LinkedIn | Facebook ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods Episode sponsored by Focus Graphics.

David deRubertis, one of California's preeminent employment trial lawyers, once had a streak of consecutive trials resulting in eight-figure verdicts. And yet he hates jury selection. How did he move past that? By embracing what comes naturally to him and how his mind works. In this conversation with hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer, David describes how he’s leveraged that lesson to persuade jurors to shift their focus in an employment case – where anger, not necessarily emotional distress, often drives the verdict. He also reveals why one winning strategy may be to not pin the case on the individual client but rather on a corporate defendant’s systemic wrongdoing. A great example: His $464.5 million verdict against Southern California Edison in a workplace harassment case, the largest contested employment verdict ever. Learn More and Connect☑️ David deRubertis | LinkedIn ☑️ The deRubertis Law Firm ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods Episode sponsored by Focus Graphics.

What a difference a month makes. Trial consultant Samantha Teal had not worked on a $14 million sexual assault verdict, $1 million employment verdict, $10 million employment pregnancy discrimination verdict, and $307 million verdict in a prisoner neglect case when this episode was recorded. A month later, hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer play their conversation. With experience consulting on nearly 100 trials, Samantha unpacks lessons learned – including why the instinct to prejudge jurors by demographics or professions could backfire, how she frames her signature voir dire question on "taking responsibility,” and when it might be okay to tell jurors that you’re nervous. Learn More and Connect☑️ Samantha Teal | LinkedIn ☑️ SMT Litigation Consulting on LinkedIn | Instagram ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Episode sponsored by Focus Graphics. Produced and Powered by LawPods

Daniel Rodriguez is the child of migrant farm workers who settled in California’s agricultural heartland, where his law practice is based. So it makes sense that the metaphor he uses for his voir dire technique is “seeding.” With $122 million and $116 million verdicts under his belt, Daniel explains this and other strategies to hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer. Tune in for his insights about where clients should be in the courtroom (out of it) and what his biggest verdicts over the past five years have in common. Spoiler: He held off giving a specific damages number. Learn More and Connect☑️ Daniel Rodriguez ☑️ Rodriguez & Associates | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | X | YouTube ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods

Dirk Vandever asks jurors to say it themselves: "I'm just as rich as Jeff Bezos." It's how he gets conservative jurors to see that a low-income client's quality of life is worth just as much as anyone else's. A Kansas City trial lawyer with phenomenal verdicts in challenging venues, Dirk joins hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer to share what drives his success. Tune in for his secrets to framing equality-of-harm for vulnerable clients, asking jurors if they're skeptical before giving them reason to be, and approaching conservative jurisdictions by identifying community values first. Learn More and Connect☑️ Dirk Vandever | LinkedIn ☑️ Popham Law Firm | X | Facebook | LinkedIn ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods

“How many of you care if the Amazon guy that delivers your package struts up like a pretty peacock?” asks Keith Mitnik. “All you care about is what's inside the package.” Pretend you’re the Amazon guy, and jurors are expecting the package. Keith, the author of “Don’t Eat the Bruises,” the definitive book on jury selection, tells you how to deliver in this episode. Visiting with hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer, Keith reveals his voir dire techniques — some “hot off the presses.” Tune in for his "evidence plus reality" framework to reframe bias, his "dignity of damages" concept to ground large verdicts in full recognition of what was taken, and his “breaking the scales” theory to combat bias against large verdicts. Get your ticket to Art of Outsmarting Live: events.themorganconnection.com/theartofoutsmartingorlando2026/plotkinpod. Use the codeword “Plotkin” for a 20% discount Learn More and Connect☑️ Keith Mitnik | LinkedIn | Website | Podcast | Products ☑️ Morgan & Morgan on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer | LinkedIn ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods Episode sponsored by Advocate Capital, Inc.

If the juror’s laughing at your dumb jokes but their answers scream “danger zone!” – don’t bask in the laughter. Watch out for the danger. With 200 jury trials on his resume, trial lawyer Keith Bruno breaks down the critical difference between being seduced by good vibes and focusing on your job: picking the best jurors. With hosts Harry Plotkin and Dan Kramer, he recalls an incident when he called out two jurors who were overheard in the bathroom giving opinions on the case. “It was uncomfortable. And I don't mind uncomfortable moments in court.” Learn More and Connect☑️ Keith Bruno | LinkedIn ☑️ Bruno Nalu Law Firm on Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Harry Plotkin | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram ☑️ Dan Kramer  | LinkedIn  ☑️ Kramer Trial Lawyers on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram ☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Produced and Powered by LawPods Episode sponsored by Advocate Capital, Inc.