Today, I want to talk about something that might sound counterintuitive—especially if you’ve been listening to the podcast for a while.

It might even sound like I’m contradicting myself.

I want to encourage you to give jurors time to predict outcomes.

Yes. Predict.

Now stay with me.

Wait… Isn’t Predictability Dangerous?

Usually, I teach the dangers of predictability.

If you fall into vocal patterns…
If your cadence becomes repetitive…
If your sound becomes formulaic…

The brain thinks it knows what you’re going to sound like.
Then it assumes it knows what you’re going to say.
And it stops listening.

Predictability in sound shuts down curiosity.

All of that is still 100% true.

But here’s the distinction.

Jurors Need Structural Predictability

To track your story, your teaching, and your arguments, jurors need a sense of direction.

Their brains are constantly scanning for:

• Context

• Pattern

• Orientation

• What’s coming next

If you don’t give them that structure intentionally, their brains will create it without you.

And that’s where things go sideways.

When jurors don’t have clear signposts, they start filling in gaps themselves. Synapses fire. They relate what you’re saying to their own experiences. They build meaning.

But it may not be meaning that supports your case.

They may go down a mental rabbit hole you never intended.

This Is Especially Dangerous in Jury Selection

Voir dire is where this gets particularly tricky.

You can’t present evidence.
You can’t argue your case.
You can’t go deep into facts.

And yes—it’s frustrating.

But from the juror’s perspective? They know you’re not saying much about the case. Which means their brain is desperately looking for context.

You have to give them something to anchor to.

In some states, mini-openings are becoming more common—brief 3–5 minute overviews that give jurors a framework before questioning begins. That’s incredibly helpful.

But even if you don’t have that option, you must provide context statements before launching into your first voir dire question.

What Happens When You Don’t

I’ve seen this over and over again in mock juries.

A juror thinks they understand where you’re going.
They want to be helpful.
They want to do a good job.

So they start talking.

But they’re completely off track.

And when they eventually realize what the case is actually about, they feel:

• Embarrassed

• Misled

• Exposed

• Resentful

The internal dialogue sounds like this:

“Why did you let me keep talking when it had nothing to do with your case?”
“Why didn’t you redirect me?”
“Now I look foolish—and I don’t even understand what this case is about.”

Never put your juror in a position where they feel stupid.

That emotion does not serve you.

The Right Kind of Prediction

There’s a difference between:

• Predictable delivery (bad)

• Predictable structure (necessary)

When you give jurors just enough context to orient themselves, you allow their brains to build productive predictive pathways.

This type of prediction:

• Primes the brain for learning

• Supports retention

• Reduces cognitive strain

• Keeps them walking with you instead of wandering alone

You’re not telling them what to think.

You’re telling them where they are.

Give Them a Path to Walk With You

Jurors don’t need full answers during voir dire.

But they do need:

• A frame

• A direction

• A sense of what the conversation is about

Give them enough structure to stay oriented.

When they feel oriented:

• They stay engaged longer

• They process more deeply

• They remember what matters

Clarity doesn’t kill curiosity.

It fuels it—when done correctly.

Until next week, keep fostering your voice.