“I understand you and Winston have worked together before.”

“Right. On a worker’s compensation case against a bank down in Long Beach. Remind me to tell you all about that sometime after I’ve had a few and we’ve got some time to burn. He’s quite a lawyer. In the beginning, nobody liked our client, but Winston spun their heads around and lined ’em up just the way we wanted by the end. I can’t wait to work with him again, and with you for the first time, Nina. I’ve read about you, which, if you think about it, is remarkable. L.A.’s about a million miles away from Tahoe, psychologically speaking.”

“You live in Los Angeles?”

“I grew up in New Orleans. Now I live in Redondo Beach, a half block from the ocean on Catalina Avenue in a little Spanish bungalow.”

“Any family?”

“No. My parents are both dead, and I don’t seem to have time for a steady guy. Just another lonely gal, lookin’ for love,” she said. Dimples peeked through her cheeks. “When I first got there, I learned to surf. Had to give it up when I started workin’ twenty-hour days.”

“You did? So did I. In a wet suit of course. I grew up in Monterey.”

“Well, it’s warmer in Redondo, but my favorite spot was the wedge in Newport.”

They shared some stories. Nina couldn’t help liking Genevieve. She wouldn’t put it past her to be fibbing about surfing, although she couldn’t catch her in an outright lie. But wouldn’t it be just like a person with her speciality to research Nina’s background, seeking some common ground before showing up for an interview? She enjoyed the conversation and had to admire Genevieve’s strategy, if that’s what it was.

“I have to tell you, I’ve never used a jury consultant before. And I have my doubts about it.”

“I’m your first,” said Genevieve. “I’ll take that as a compliment.”

“You need to realize that you’re coming on as a consultant. I want you to give me the benefit of all of your knowledge, but I reserve the right to make my own decisions.”

“You’ll listen to me if you plan to win. What exactly do you know about jury consulting?”

“Very little.”

“It all started over twenty years ago with the trial of the Harrisburg Seven. That was the first time I know of when some of these techniques were used to help the defense team in selecting jurors.”

“Did they win?”

“That case was settled the night before the trial began,” said Genevieve. “But since then, social scientists have shown that, when employed by a knowledgeable pro, these techniques can work. Name any recent major trial, and I’ll give you five to one odds they used a jury consultant.”

“I’m not sure why it makes me uncomfortable,” Nina said. “Maybe I just don’t like the idea of manipulating a jury… but of course that’s exactly what I’m trying to do myself every single moment.”

“It’s war out there, honey. And it’s not like you know for sure how people will vote once those doors to the jury room shut behind them.”

“You’re right. There are always facts to muck up the works.”

“Too true,” Genevieve said vehemently. “The dominant factor in any trial outcome, no matter how carefully you handpick your people, is still the facts. But what people will come to believe are the facts and how they will react to them, that’s where we come in. I’d say it’s legal malpractice not to use a jury consultant in a big case these days.”

“Funny, Winston said the same thing. I guess that makes me just a little old small-town lawyer committing malpractice left and right,” said Nina.

“Yes, just a small-town lawyer. Not much, is it, when you could be a superstar?” Genevieve said without a hint of sarcasm. “You’re attractive; that’s a big plus for most juries. A little short, but a session with a shoe salesman should cure that. All that long hair“-she shook her short hair disapprovingly-”you might think about cutting. If not, we’ll work on style. That leaves your clothes and your… um… attitude for later.”

“Mighty nice of you to hold off.”

Genevieve couldn’t ignore Nina’s irritation this time. She laughed. “You’ll get used to me. I’m going to be after you worse than your own mother. Now, what’s the word? Are we doing this thing together or not? I’ll do a damn good job for you.”

“If we can work out the financial details. You’re going to have to receive the bulk of your fee at the end of the trial…”

“We’ll work those details out later. Meanwhile, just let me tell you what else I’m going to do for you.”

Nina pushed her empty plate away and sat back to let the meal settle heavily into her stomach.

“I’ll be up here a lot from now on. We’ll begin with a telephone questionnaire to people in the local venire. That’s to get a handle on who lives here, their prejudices, type of work, political leanings, group affiliations, etcetera. From that information, I determine whether the jury list reflects that population. If it’s not a favorable group, we might want to request that the pool be increased. I believe in this county, El Dorado, you can request that the pool be expanded to include jurors from adjacent counties. That might be useful to us. I’ll find out.”

“What kinds of questions do you ask?” said Nina.

“Questions that will help us determine underlying personality characteristics. Then you and I will get together to analyze the survey results. I do what’s called a factor analysis-bottom line, I create a scale of factors predicting juror favorability. That’s where we decide what the crucial issues are in this case and what critical set of opinions, determinants such as economic status, racial prejudice, distributive equity positions, and so on will end up being deciding factors.”

“No graphs, please!”

“I’ll hide them in a hole in the wall and never tell you where,” Genevieve promised.

“And that last thing you said. Distributive equity?”

“That’s an old idea. Aristotle defined it first. You’ll be hearing a lot from me about it. The question is, to what degree will a certain prospective juror tolerate inequity in a relationship?”

“Like the one between Mike and Lindy Markov.”

“Correct. I’ll figure out which types of people are most likely to recommend specific remedies for the particular perceived inequity in this case, a good specific remedy for our client being stacks of leafy-green money.” The thought fired her up and she extended her empty hands over an imaginary pile of money.

“I can’t knock that,” Nina said slowly.

“So the most important part of what I do before the trial is to work with you to develop two juror profiles, one of your friend and one of your enemy. That involves juggling information, using at least two common approaches, multiple regression and automatic interaction detection, to find out what characteristics we need to know and how they can be combined to create our good and bad Frankensteins.”

“I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about.”

“I’m sorry, I’ve degenerated into jargon. You don’t have to worry about that stuff.”

“Okay.”

“After that, I’ll be working with you on your voir dire questions. And I’ll help you figure out which facts to emphasize and deemphasize in your opening statement. And how to present your evidence. And-”

Nina’s mind reeled with the possibilities Genevieve raised at the same time as it mused over the compromise of her own principles. Her way was not Genevieve’s way. But she had no choice. She needed Winston, and he insisted on Genevieve, so she would make the most of the situation, taking what served her purposes and discarding the rest. “Can you do all this on your own?”

“I’ve got two assistants in L.A. who’ll conduct the phone interviews and help me collate what we gather. Later, we’ll need a private investigator. I can recommend…”

“That’s okay. I work with someone from Carmel, Paul Van Wagoner.”

“If we can get hold of the potential jury list ahead of time, he’s going to have to run around and talk to the neighbors and friends to give us some early info. If not, while the judge and attorneys are interviewing candidates during the voir dire, he should be out there digging in the trash cans so we can make a more informed decision about your peremptories and challenges for cause.”