“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. While there is no point in revealing a weakness that is unknown to one’s opponents or that would not be exploited by them, many it should be volunteered; otherwise, the hostile revelation would be more damaging.
Although no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials, studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is, in fact, effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Lawyers’ commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated consequence, it should carry less weight than if it had been included only in hostile testimony.
Finally, stealing thunder may work because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his or her own terms and downplay its significance, just as politicians sometimes seek to put their “spin” on potentially damaging information. However, it may therefore be effective only when the negative information can be framed positively. Jurors, who impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema.
What this question is testing
Topic
The author is explaining a courtroom trick called "stealing thunder" — where you tell the jury about your client's weakness before the other side does — and why it works.
Framework
Highlight Noteworthy.
Main Point
The simpler version: when there's bad info about your client that's going to come out anyway, get it out yourself first. Studies of mock trials show this strategy works, and psychology gives several reasons. You look more credible. The jury becomes alert and starts pushing back against the other side's pitch. The damaging info becomes "old news." And you get to put your spin on it. The catch: if the info is really bad, getting it out first can backfire — it sets the wrong frame for everything that follows.
P1: The strategy
If your client has a weakness the other side will probably exploit, volunteer it first. That softens the blow.
P2: Why it works
Real trials haven't been studied, but mock trials confirm the strategy. Psychology adds reasons: (1) you look credible because you're hurting your own case; (2) warned juries push back harder against the other side; (3) the same evidence from both sides becomes "old news" and loses force.
P3: One more reason — and the catch
You also get to spin the bad info on your own terms. Jurors solidify their position quickly, so your early framing sticks. But there's a limit: if the info is really damaging, going first creates an early negative impression that becomes the lens for everything else. So the strategy can backfire.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.