|
SUSAN E. JONES 
Dr. Susan E. Jones is the Founder of Jury Research Institute headquartered in Alamo, California, one of the nation's most respected jury consulting firms.
Dr. Jones is a pioneer in the field of jury research and persuasion. Her research studies on the elements of courtroom persuasion have shattered many commonly-held beliefs about persuading juries. Over the last 20 years she has been sought out by litigators and in-house counsel representing hundreds of Fortune 500 companies to help craft and pre-test winning trial strategies in high-stakes cases with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars at stake. Her insights have assisted her clients in obtaining outstanding verdicts and settlements, earning her a national reputation as a valued asset to any litigation team.
In her work on over 1000 jury trials, she has personally observed more than 2000 juries deliberate, gaining insights about what goes on inside the deliberation room that are possessed by few others. Jones’ work has taken her to hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the United States. She has experience in most all types of civil litigation, including product liability, commercial litigation, employment claims, intellectual property, professional liability, toxic torts, and many others.
Dr. Jones' lively, fascinating and informative approach to teaching has made her a much sought-after lecturer by hundreds of national, state and local bar associations and corporate counsel associations. Dr. Jones is often asked to lend her expertise to publications like the Wall Street Journal and Business Week. She has authored dozens of articles and book chapters for legal publications, including American Jury Trials, Trial Magazine, Law and Human Behavior, and The Practical Litigator. She also served on the Editorial Board of Law and Psychology Review.
A licensed psychologist in California, Dr. Jones received her Ph.D. from the University of Alabama, where she was awarded a research grant from the National Institute of Justice to study juror candor during judge versus attorney conducted voir dire.
|