Whether onstage or in the courtroom, the way you start and the way you end deeply shapes what people remember.

In this episode, we explore the neuroscience-backed principles of primacy and recency—why jurors remember your opening and closing far more than the middle—and how to use that knowledge to structure your case with clarity, impact, and emotional resonance.

From voir dire to final argument, your first and last impressions aren’t just about style—they’re strategy.

LISTEN HERE...

In this episode, you’ll learn:

1. What the primacy effect and recency effect mean for trial attorneys
2. How early “micro-impressions” shape juror trust before opening statements even begin
3. Why your opening must be structured with rule, roadmap, and relatable storytelling
4. What a powerful closing should include—and how it echoes long after you leave the courtroom
5. How to use emotional anchors to make your case human and memorable
6. Why planning your entrances and exits isn’t about performance—it’s about leadership

Key Takeaway:

Your first impression is a neurological anchor. Your last impression is the one that walks into deliberation without you. Use both to guide, teach, and move your jurors with clarity and heart.

Favorite Moment:

“You won’t be in the room during deliberations—but your voice can be.”

Links & Resources:

🔉Want more on building emotional and cognitive anchors into your case structure? Check out Episode 23: Balancing Logic & Emotion at https://www.fostervoicestudio.com/blog/23

📕 Malcolm Gladwell – Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

Book site: https://www.gladwellbooks.com/titles/malcolm-gladwell/blink/9780316010665/

✍️ Primacy & Recency Effects in Trial

https://www.litigationgroup.com/2015/03/01/winter-2015/

Want more?

👉 Get weekly tips and techniques delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to "The Foster Files" Newsletter: https://www.fostervoicestudio.com/contact

👉 Follow me online for behind-the-scenes voice tips, mindset shifts, and strategies to help you lead with your voice in and out of court:

1. IG: www.instagram.com/fostervoicestudio
2. FB: www.facebook.com/fostervoicestudio
3. LI: www.linkedin/in/fosterthought
4. Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/fostervoicestudio/

If this episode was helpful, forward it to a colleague or leave a quick review. Every share helps other trial attorneys foster their voice with more clarity, connection, and impact.

TRANSCRIPT:

Helloooo! Hello, Foster Fam. Welcome back! To kick us off, we're continuing our little mini-series on Why the Tour de France (be best bike race in the entire world), why & how is it like trial.

Last week, we talked about how both the Tour and trial, or the whole lawsuit process really, are a test of attrition. It's not the person who wins the first stage, or the first thing that wins everything; it's the person who finishes strong, makes it through all the tedium and is still standing with the best time, or best overall presentation at the end.

Then we talked about how cycling, just like trial, is a team sport even though there's an individual leader. The whole team working together helps the leader win, get the verdict, but the leader would not be able to do it without their team, or their whole staff.

Which, nicely ties into the 3rd fact that everyone has a critical role to play. In a cycling team, there are Sprinters, climbers, time-trialists, and overall workhorses called "domestiques"—that all have very specific strengths that they deploy at key moments. By doing their job at the highest level, might guarantee that they never personally win a race. For instance, a lead-out rider might never win a stage for themselves, but without them, the sprinter for the team probably doesn’t win either.

In trial prep, each team member contributes at specific stages: intake, discovery, trial prep, voir dire, closing. Skill sets are leveraged for the good of the whole. And like, a skilled legal assistant catching a filing error can be as crucial as the attorney who does the cross-exam.

Cycling and Litigation are also more about strategy than about brute strength. In cycling, knowing when not to attack is often more important than launching a breakaway. Conserving energy, drafting, and choosing the right moment to make an effective move all matter.

Just like attorneys...Knowing when to settle, when to pause, or how to control tempo in front of a jury, that can win more than displays of raw aggression. A calm, credible and authoritative demeanor may land more impact than dramatic flair ever could.

Let me know if any of you are watching The Tour this year. I, obviously, need people to talk about it with. hahaha! I'll have a few more similarities to cover as we continue through the grand tour, but let's get into our topic today...primacy & recency effect.

—INTERNAL AD—

—MAIN—

Today we’re talking about something that’s as true in the courtroom as it is on the stage.

First impressions—and last impressions. Or to use the neuroscience term for it—the primacy and recency effect.

Now, I first learned this not in law school… but on stage. As a performer—whether in vocal recitals or theater productions—I learned early that how you enter the room… and how you leave it… matter. A LOT.

When you walk into an audition, you're one of hundreds of faces they’ll see that day. The director has maybe 10 seconds to take you in. They watch how you greet the accompanist. How you introduce yourself—what we call "slating." And by the time you've said your name and what you’re going to sing, the impression is made...even before you open your mouth to perform.

It’s what Malcolm Gladwell calls “thin slicing” in his book Blink—the brain’s remarkable ability to make fast, accurate judgments with limited information. And directors are highly practiced , if not trained, at it.

So am I. As a former director myself, I can honestly say there were auditions where I could have cast the show just based on the way people entered the room. No singing required.

It might sound a little unfair, but the truth is: the brain is wired this way. First impressions are fast, sticky, and incredibly difficult to reverse.

Trial attorneys—you know this intuitively. You’ve probably felt it during voir dire. Or seen it when co-counsel starts a little off, and the jury tunes out before they’ve even reached the good stuff. It’s all primacy and recency.

The primacy effect means jurors remember the first thing they heard. That early information anchors their attention and builds their first impression of you, your case, and your credibility.

And then there's recency—which tells us that the last thing jurors hear will stick with them as well. It leaves the lasting flavor, so to speak, in their mental palate as they head into deliberations.

This is exactly why your openings and closings carry so much strategic weight.

But, even before opening statements, you’re shaping first impressions. In jury selection, when you give jurors a bit of context—“This case takes place in and around a construction site”—you’re already creating cognitive ease. You’re giving them a mini roadmap. And in doing so, you’re building trust.

Those little moments of clarity? They’re micro-impressions. And they matter. You’re starting to position yourself as the person who can guide them, who can equip them. They don’t even know what the case is yet—but they’re forming an impression about you.

Then we get to opening.

1. Start strong. Don’t warm up on the jury’s time. Treat it like a cold open—step in ready to lead. Begin with clarity and calm authority.

2. Give them a rule. A clear, concise statement that frames the case. Jurors need structure.

3. Teach them. Equip them with the knowledge they need to understand the issues and participate fully. And don’t assume they know what you know—your job is to build their confidence by giving them the information they need to orient them to the case and to what they can expect in the rest of trial.

4. Then tell the story. With energy. With animation. With human moments that anchor the facts.

This combination—rule, roadmap, and relatable storytelling—is what makes an opening statement more than just information. It makes it memorable.

Now let’s talk about the other bookend—your closing. Your final impression matters just as much, maybe even more, than the first.

This is the moment where jurors begin to form their collective story of the case. They’re weighing everything you’ve taught them. And they’re getting ready to enter a room without you in it—and decide.

So what do they need from you? They need:

1. A clear, confident summary that brings it all together.

2. A return to the core principle or rule you gave them at the beginning.

3. A call to action—the specific verdict that justice requires.

4. And maybe most importantly: an emotional anchor. A final image or statement that gives the facts human meaning. i did a whole episode about how you have to balance logic and emotion. They need both. Facts alone don't cut it. Give them something emotional to hang on to.

You won’t be in the room during deliberations, but your voice can be.

So here’s what I want you to take from today:

Your first impression isn’t just a soft skill—it’s a neurological anchor.

And your last impression? It’s the one that walks into deliberation without you.

Whether it’s jury selection, opening statement, or closing argument—plan those moments with intention. Bookend your case with clarity. With structure. With heart. Because it’s not just the facts that matter. It’s how, and when, you deliver them.

If this episode gave you something to think about, would you share it with a colleague? And maybe leave a quick review?

I’ll see you next time, and until then—keep fostering your voice.