The place to begin the analysis is with a proposal for a sample statement of the core intuition. This is only one example of such a core theme statement. Different attorneys may very well have different intuitions that could equally well be described and applied to this case.

A sample core intuition/theme for this case:

"The desperate greed and arrogance of the colossal Ford corporation completely overrode its responsibility to the ordinary modest and vulnerable customer. It’s time to teach Ford a serious and humbling lesson – that it absolutely can not disregard the basic safety of its customers in such a deliberate, reckless, dismissive, abusive and destructive manner."

As previously explained in other pages, this theme is an undercurrent of this entire trial, affecting all the participants, including the attorneys, the witnesses, the judge, and most crucially, the jury. On this basis, we can examine how each side might develop its trial strategy to present the strongest possible case.


THE PLAINTIFF -- The Plaintiff begins this case with an initial advantage, as the core intuition ("central theme") is in natural alignment with its assertions. The essential job of the Plaintiff’s attorney is to maintain the force of this theme on everyone in the courtroom through the entire trial. And from the gist of the NY TIMES article, Mr. Hunter seems prepared to try and do just this.

The TIMES says he likes to remind people that similar to his clients, he is but a single, modest person -- "just a country boy from Arkadelphia." But in addition, he is also characterized as a tenacious, rapidly moving, tough, smart, adept, and extremely well prepared attorney who will make very sure that he will represent the interests of his clients as thoroughly and as forcefully as possible. Mr. Turner has painstakingly collected a mountain of evidence, including important internal Ford documents and direct testimony from key individuals, with which he can press his attack from what feels to be an inevitably overpowering and devastating position. He constitutes a most formidable David against Goliath.

One of the first and most crucial steps of the proceeding is jury selection. The task of Plaintiff’s attorney is to pick jurors whose fundamental personal values resonate with the core theme of this case.

The presence or absence of such a personal orientation in a potential juror can not be assessed adequately by knowing his/her demographic parameters, or even by review of extensive questionnaires. The evaluation of the juror can only really be done in live voir dire, where his/her individual reaction pattern to the theme can be examined directly.

The evaluation is accomplished by asking the potential juror about a particular kind of personal experience -- experience that directly relates to the theme of this case. This is really no different from asking the juror about other categories of personal experiences, e.g., if she/he has ever had any personal experience with automobile accidents, with law suits, or with driving Ford vehicles. This line of questioning does not assess the potential juror with respect to the specific factual issues of this case. Instead, this set of queries evaluates the potential juror’s basic, inherent response to the underlying core intuition theme of this trial.

For example, the potential juror is queried about having had any experiences in which he/she was wronged, and the party causing the problem/harm avoided taking responsibility for it. (Even better, would be situations in which the injuring party was perceived as being more powerful, more dominant, more authoritative than the victim.) This, of course, is a very common, if not universal, experience. It will be the kind of scenario people can relate to and can discuss when such questions are posed to them.

The key point is to learn how each potential juror has handled to such a situation in his/her experience. This will reflect how a given potential juror will respond to the bottom line issue of this case.

The Plaintiff’s attorney wants jurors who were angry and or self-righteously indignant about being wronged in such a manner, and who in reaction to their anger, actively fought for serious compensation. Also acceptable would be individuals who sought retribution. Plaintiff’s attorney does not want potential jurors who passively resigned themselves to the inflicted harm and did nothing, or who felt that nothing either should or could be done to correct the situation. Nor does Plaintiff’s attorney want jurors who prominently blamed themselves as victims for the wronged caused to them.

The Plaintiff must deal with all witnesses consistent with this theme. The key Plaintiff witnesses need to echo the essence of deliberate and abusive disregard on the part of the defendant. It is their task to communicate a palpable sense of this theme to the jury; the jurors need to experience the atmosphere of disdainful and reckless neglect.

On cross examination, the Plaintiff should work to elicit from the opposing witness a display of the very behavior for which the defendant is being sued. The jury will feel more charged with the desire to punish the defendant if they can observe for themselves the defendant’s irresponsibility. The Plaintiff can pose straight forward questions which will demonstrate the opposing witnesses’ tendency to deny, to cover up, to evade, etc., real responsibility for the design of the Explorer, or for the "rollover" incidents. The attorney needs to specifically point out these maneuvers each time the witness employs them. This will show the jury an actual example of the very behavior for which Ford is on trial. If on the other hand, any of the individual witnesses on cross examination acknowledge a role in the rollover accidents, then Plaintiff’s attorney can demonstrate their being humbled, and perhaps even remorseful and penitent. This will provide a first hand demonstration for the jury of what they are expected to do when they deliberate on the issue of the responsibility of the Ford corporation itself.

Finally, the Plaintiff needs to keep in mind that all interactions with the court must also be consistent with the central theme of the case. The judge, if and when necessary, must act in such a manner to reflect the notion that wrong doing is acknowledged and paid for. In the courtroom, therefore, any mistakes by either side (including the Plaintiff’s side) must be deliberately and fully acknowledged and promptly corrected. If the judge begins to deviate from his job of catching and correcting mistakes in the courtroom, then Plaintiff’s job is to immediately point this out to the judge. The judge should be encouraged to consistently adhere to this strict approach, and when he does, should be openly acknowledged and appreciated for doing so.

This brief presentation covers the application of the core intuition (theme) in the courtroom from the Plaintiff’s perspective.

THE DEFENDANT -- The Defendant begins this trial at an initial disadvantage. As previously mentioned, the thrust of the core intuition of this case naturally favors the Plaintiff. The Defendant has the more difficult, and the more necessary task of determining the approach to the core theme that is most beneficial to its side.

The core theme of this case naturally defines an axis, between denial, evasion, disregard, and cover-up on the one end, and capitulating, humbling confession on the other end. The Defendant’s basic strategy must be designed to break through the constraint this axis imposes on the thinking and experience of the entire trial.

The Defendant must first acknowledge that they definitely are a part of "big business", with all the power and influence that usually accompanies such an organization. To underscore this, Ford can summarize their vast operations in this country and worldwide. They can conclude by stating that no organization can establish, run and effectively control such widespread operations unless they are ready to take on the challenge and responsibility of being a very big business.

Ford can then direct its argument to the issue that as big business, they have two major responsibilities. First, hey must constantly renew their commitment to accepting this challenge and responsibility of being an efficient and profitable company that is global in scope. If they were not willing to accept this responsibility, they could not continue to exist, and could not make the product that people want and need. Second, the Defendant has the responsibility of simultaneously focusing on the safety and satisfaction of the customer, because without loyal customers, they also could not exist. The Defendant has to state that they are certain that most thoughtful and aware people appreciate that any thriving business has this dual responsibility. And, Ford must declare that they also realize that most people would understand that these two primary responsibilities may, at times, appear to be at odds with each other. Ford’s job, the argument must continue, is to balance both these responsibilities in the most workable manner possible. The Defendant can detail at some length the overall safety record of their vehicles, and of this vehicle in particular.

Ford needs to acknowledges that all serious vehicular accidents, including those that occurred with their vehicles, of course are unfortunate, and some even tragic. Ford’s safety vehicle safety record is no worse, perhaps even better than all the other major automobile manufacturers. But to in effect cause Ford to "crash" and "roll over" as just punishment and compensation does not achieve anything productive. It just promotes an "eye for an eye" policy.

Jury selection is one of the key early steps. To reiterate, potential jurors are selected on the basis of their personal resonance with the central intuition or theme of this case, and not by a particular combination of demographic factors. The Defendant explains that this trial requires jurors who can accept the challenge and responsibility of the role of being in a powerful decision making position, in a very big and important trial -- not unlike that of being upper level executives in a big business, e.g., Ford. The jurors must be able to handle in the most reasonable and fair manner the responsibility of balancing the different, even competing, issues offered by the two sides of this case.

The Defendant can test the reaction pattern of each individual, potential juror. This can be done by posing the same series of queries as already described under the Plaintiff’s section. To repeat, the potential juror is queried about having any experiences in which he/she was wronged, and the party causing the problem/harm avoided taking responsibility for it.

The Defendant, in contrast, is looking for jurors who have felt significant anger and anguish when they have experienced harm by seemingly indifferent and reckless parties, but who have then been able to react other than in an "eye for an eye" fashion. The Defendant wants jurors who can allow "cooler heads to prevail"; jurors who in their own prior experience have demonstrated a tendency to reflect and balance different, even competing, claims and interests. The Defendant does not want jurors who insist upon "black and white" or "all or none" type solutions. Nor does the Defendant want any jurors who can not even admit to feeling angry or anguish when harmed.

When questioning its witnesses, the Defendant must present them consistent with the experience of balancing different responsibilities. The Defendant must also prepare their witnesses for cross examination. They need to learn how to respond to any line of questioning that attempts to pits the responsibility for safety in direct conflict with the responsibility to manufacture a worthwhile, profitable product. Whenever a witness senses he/she is being placed in the trap, by Plaintiff’s attorney, of having to acknowledge such a dichotomy between safety and profit, he/she must explicitly point out the fact that he/she is being coerced to adopt such a view by Plaintiff’s attorney.

The Defendant’s cross examination of witnesses, must also steer their responses away from any forced choice pattern pitting one important issue or interest against another in an "all or none" fashion.

Finally, when interacting with the Court, the Defendant must also encourage the Judge to respond by balancing motions, claims, objections from the two competing parties. Such balancing behavior on the part of the Judge will provide the jury with an example of what they are expected to do.