In this IMS Insights Podcast episode, Senior Client Success Advisor Adam Bloomberg sits down with Senior Jury Consulting & Strategy Advisor Chris Ritter to discuss how core values influence juror decision-making and shape trial outcomes.
Listen now to learn about:
- The role core values play in how jurors evaluate cases
- How emotional, analytical, and instinctive thinking affects verdicts
- Why fairness, personal responsibility, and common sense matter in litigation
- Using Mental Mining® to identify and apply core values in case strategy
- How active jurors use these values to influence deliberations
Whether you are preparing for a jury trial, arbitration, or similar high-stakes proceedings, this episode offers practical insights for connecting with your audience and strengthening advocacy through a deeper understanding of decision-making.
Watch the original LinkedIn Live recording here.
Transcript:
Tiffany Thompson: Hello, I’m Tiffany Thompson, Director of Marketing at IMS, and today I’m here to introduce today’s topic: the theory of core values.
In this conversation, we will explore a framework developed over decades of trial work that helps lawyers understand what truly motivates jurors in the deliberation room.
Joining me today are Chris Ritter, Senior Jury Consulting and Strategy Advisor, and Adam Bloomberg, Senior Client Success Advisor.
If you’re watching the recording of this video, please like and subscribe to this channel.
Guys, over to you.
Adam Bloomberg: Hey, thanks for the intro.
We’re here today to drill down on a theory I’ve heard you talk about repeatedly, and that’s the theory of core values, right? What are core values?
Chris Ritter: Well, core values and the theory of core values are something that I’ve developed over the last 20 years or so. Core values are those values that motivate us.
That’s one where people will accept responsibility for what they’re doing or will not accept it, and that has an effect. Prejudgment and prejudice—those are things that can be positive or negative impressions. Self-interest is when somebody does something because they think they will benefit from it. And vengeance is the whole notion of really wanting to punish someone, usually in a criminal context, for having done something really bad.
Adam: I’m sitting here thinking about this, and I can hear defense perspectives and themes and plaintiff perspectives and themes. How is this different from Reptile?
Chris: Well, the reptile theory is something you often hear people reference. It is usually used by the plaintiff as a way of trying to convince people to act. It appeals to that reptilian part of the brain, which is motivated by fear and some of the more basic emotions that we feel.
I think it is valid, but the problem I have with the reptile theory is that it is not nuanced enough. I do not think it accounts for things like fairness, compassion, or checklisting.
So I do not disregard it, but I do think that the theory of core values is a more nuanced approach. It also provides the defense with a strong way to counteract reptile theory by appealing to concepts like checklisting, fairness, and mercy.
I think they both exist side by side, but I believe this framework offers more depth and more opportunity for the defense.
Adam: So with your 11 core values, how does the typical trial attorney make practical use of them?
Chris: I think first you have to understand a couple of things. Not every core value exists in every case, and not every person has all 11. We tend to have more than one.
For example, I tend to be a checklister because I am a lawyer, but I also believe in fairness and personal responsibility.
A practical way to apply this is through what I call mental mining. I literally write all 11 core values down on a board. Think of that as a middle column. On the left, I put plaintiff or prosecution, and on the right, I put defense.
Then we go through each one and ask: if you are the plaintiff, would you rely on this core value? If so, how? If you are the defense, would you rely on it?
When we are done, we have several values identified. Some will apply to both sides, some only to one.
That gives you a strong foundation for thinking about jury selection and argument strategy—what values you want represented and what arguments you need to make.
I want to stress that you are not arguing all of these in the alternative. You are not saying, “Be fair, and if not, then be compassionate.” Instead, you recognize which values are triggered in your case and ensure your presentation supports them so jurors can rely on them and ultimately reach a decision in your favor.
Adam: All right, last question. How does this fit in with your other theory—active jurors?
Chris: First, it is important to understand that when a jury reaches a verdict, they are not necessarily agreeing on how they got there. They are agreeing on the outcome.
An active juror is someone who transitions from being a neutral finder of fact to someone who endorses one side. They have a strong incentive to argue for that position.
The opposite is what I call an “I just am” juror—someone who cannot explain why they are voting a certain way. Their vote counts just as much, but they are not persuading others.
Active jurors rely on core values to convince themselves and then use those same values to persuade others—whether other active jurors or “I just am” jurors—to reach the same conclusion.
They use these tools to help move the group toward a verdict that allows their side to prevail.
Adam: All right, well, I appreciate your time as always. Thanks for stopping by.
Chris: Thank you.
