“Stealing thunder” is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer’s revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer.
Topic
"Stealing thunder" — the courtroom strategy of revealing a client's damaging information first — and the psychological reasons why it works (with limits).
Framework
Highlight Noteworthy. The author surveys evidence and psychological explanations for why the strategy works.
Main Point
Stealing thunder is corroborated as an effective strategy by simulated trials and supported by several psychological mechanisms (credibility, critical assessment, scarcity, framing) — though it has limits when information is very damaging.
P1: What stealing thunder is
A lawyer reveals negative client information before opposing counsel can. Pointless if the weakness is unknown or won't be exploited; otherwise, voluntary revelation is less damaging than hostile revelation.
P2: Why it works — research and three psychological explanations
No empirical research has tested the strategy in actual trials. But simulated-trial studies suggest it's effective within a reasonable range of applications. Lawyers' belief in the strategy is corroborated by experimental findings and supported by psychological explanations.
(1) Credibility: people who reveal information against their own interest are perceived as more credible (a finding from psychological research).
(2) Critical assessment: warning juries about upcoming attempts at persuasion makes them resist (in psychological experiments, audiences warned about persuasion become more resistant).
(3) Scarcity: a piece of evidence becomes "old news" once the prosecution and defense have both raised it; persuasive messages, like commodities, are valued more when scarcer.
P3: A fourth explanation — and a limitation
Stealing thunder works because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his/her own terms and downplay it (like political "spin"). But this works only when the information can be framed positively. Jurors initially have little information and want to solidify their position; they use the early positive framing to guide subsequent analysis. The strategy's limit: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that becomes a cognitive framework jurors use to filter subsequent information.