Litigants need a clearer way to assess the risks of going to trial. Whether the case involves the prosecution, the defense, a civil plaintiff, or a civil defendant, strategic decisions should not rest on the assumption that “anything can happen.”

Fair Trial Analysis uses jury-pool surveys and statistical analysis to estimate likely verdict outcomes under a single, defined trial condition. Instead of comparing two versions of a case, this form of analysis focuses on one carefully constructed presentation and asks how potential jurors are likely to respond.

The goal is to provide a disciplined estimate of litigation risk. By measuring how jury-eligible respondents evaluate the facts, apply the law, and explain their decisions, the analysis can help attorneys and clients understand whether a case appears strong, weak, close, or highly uncertain.

This work is designed for litigators, legal researchers, public-interest organizations, and others who need practical, evidence-based insight into how a jury pool may respond to a case.

What the Analysis Can Show

Estimating verdict probabilities can help clarify how a defined version of a case is likely to perform with jury-eligible respondents. The analysis can measure the proportion of respondents who favor a particular outcome, such as conviction, acquittal, liability, no liability, death sentence, life sentence, or another case-specific result.

The analysis can also show the degree of uncertainty around that estimate. A case may appear overwhelmingly favorable to one side, closely divided, or unstable depending on how respondents interpret the facts and legal standards.

Respondent explanations add another layer of insight. They can show which facts drive decision-making, which arguments are persuasive, which issues create confusion, and which parts of the case may be viewed as legally or morally significant.

This type of analysis can help answer questions such as:

• What percentage of jury-eligible respondents favor each outcome?
• Does the case appear strong, weak, or close under the tested condition?
• Which facts or themes are most important to respondents?
• How do respondents explain their verdict preferences?
• Are respondents applying the legal standard as expected?
• Does the case present unusual risk because jurors divide sharply or reason unpredictably?

The result is not a guarantee of what any particular jury will do. It is a structured estimate of likely verdict preferences in a relevant jury pool, based on data rather than intuition alone.

---

Who This Helps

This analysis helps those who need to evaluate trial risk before making strategic decisions. It can support decisions about settlement, plea negotiations, trial preparation, client counseling, resource allocation, and whether additional investigation or expert work is needed.

It is useful for criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, and public-interest organizations that need a clearer assessment of how a case may be received by potential jurors.

For individual parties, the analysis can make litigation risk more concrete. Instead of hearing only that trial is uncertain, clients can receive an empirical estimate of likely verdict preferences, along with an explanation of what appears to be driving those preferences.

For funders, researchers, and reform organizations, verdict-probability analysis shows how rigorous empirical methods can make legal decision-making more transparent, disciplined, and evidence-based.

---