Stimulus: -- the facts to be considered. Lawyers attempt to establish facts favorable to their case and to exclude facts which are unfavorable. They do this through investigation, exhibits, direct and cross examination of witnesses, and arguments for admissibility and exclusion pursuant to the rules of evidence. These skills require command over rules of procedure and evidence, but their essence lies in underlying abilities to see facts from multiple points of view, to choose as the core theory of their case the most compelling story and argument line to the desired result, and to develop and present this line through compelling narrative. Once the facts are in, both helpful and not, the lawyer must then find a way to tell the story so that it builds up emotionally to their legal point.

Mindset: -- the subjective state of mind of the observer from whom reaction to the stimulus is sought. Mindset describes all the decisionmaker brings to the decision. Lawyers attempt to have their cases heard by decisionmakers who start with a mindset favorably disposed to them. Many say cases are won and lost in jury selection.

Context: -- the frame around the facts, the subtle key to influencing mindset. How has the mindset of the observer been prepared? Lawyers fight for context. Facts in one context may take on wholly different meaning in another context. Meaning may differ depending on what has come before.

The first Rodney King case presents a quite stunning courtroom example of lawyers using narrative skills to reframe what many regarded as a clear-cut story told by the video of the beating. You have all no doubt seen the infamous video tape, shocking proof of police brutality which would seem to permit no meaning other than that the police were guilty of a completely unwarranted, racially motivated beating. Four of the policemen who administered the beating were prosecuted by the State of California in what became known as the first Rodney King case. Notwithstanding the video tape, this case was won by the defense. How?

The defense succeeded in having the venue of the trial moved from Los Angeles to Simi Valley, where they selected an all-white jury. From a judicial point of view this was outrageous, and utterly undermined the legitimacy of the trial. But the all-white jury is not enough in itself to explain the defense victory. Simi Valley in 1992 was a place much like Cambridge is today, not like Mississippi in 1965. There is no reason to think the jurors were out and out racists. The defense still had to convince the jury that there was a reasonable doubt about the defendants' guilt.