Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 SEPTEMBER 2026

No Red Herrings Here: Why Plain Language Wins At Trial

Trial lawyers often assume jurors understand common legal terminology, but research reveals a significant comprehension gap. A mock trial study examining the phrase "red herring" found that only three of seventeen jurors could accurately define this seemingly familiar term, raising critical questions about courtroom communication effectiveness.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Trial lawyers spend significant time refining themes, witnesses, and arguments. Yet even a strong case can lose momentum when jurors do not understand the language being used. As seen in real and mock proceedings, attorneys often overestimate jurors' familiarity with commonly used legal and business terminology.

When Common Language Isn't So Common

During a mock trial(Opens in a new window) involving a Manhattan jury pool, one attorney referred to a “red herring,” a phrase we have heard countless times before mock and trial juries. It never dawned on us that the term might confuse them. In this instance, our research team(Opens in a new window) asked jurors to define the phrase in their own words. The results revealed a substantial gap between attorney assumptions and juror understanding.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from