Placing your case in both factual and emotional context makes it more believable and helps the audience connect with your client. Factual context explains what happened, why it happened, and how events unfolded. When that context aligns with normal human behavior, it strengthens your credibility. Emotional context, when consistent with the facts, helps jurors understand and relate to your client’s experience.
People evaluate cases through the lens of what they consider normal behavior. Attorneys should use context in their theory, themes, and methods of proof by showing they are consistent with normal behavior.
You can challenge opposing counsel's case by showing it is out of context.
Context can also be used to challenge opposing counsel’s case. Just as you show your case aligns with normal behavior, you should highlight when the opposing version does not. Demonstrating that the other side’s narrative is inconsistent with ordinary human behavior can seriously undermine its credibility.
