“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
Anticipate
This is a Locate Detail question. The question asks what kinds of evidence the author actually relies on. The passage tells me directly.
P2 says no empirical research has tested stealing thunder in actual trials, but simulated-trial studies have. The psychological explanations come from research about credibility, audience warnings, and scarcity — research that wasn't directly concerned with legal proceedings. So the two evidence sources are: research not directly about legal proceedings, and research where subjects participated in simulated trial situations.
Goal
Find the answer that names both. Common traps:
Answers that include things the passage rules out — research in actual trials, records of judges' decisions, controlled studies of courtroom behavior
Answers about informal surveys of clients or lawyers — the passage doesn't cite these
Answers about informal observations of nontrial uses — no such observations are cited
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.