A second question might be, “Why do attorneys
use it?” Again, based more on trial advocacy books
and interviews than actual research (of which there
appears to be none by trial lawyers themselves), the
answer appears to be that it works for two reasons:
(1) to give the appearance of honesty and being “up
front” with the triers of fact and (2) to allow the attor-
ney who steals thunder to frame the evidence in such
a manner that it diminishes its importance. In other
words, attorneys can put their own spin on the poten-
tially damaging information.
A third question that attorneys may ask is, “What
can be done to counteract the stealing thunder tactic?”
Little or no information appears on this topic when
reading trial advocacy books.
Note that none of the questions asks whether steal-
ing thunder works. The empirical research started
with this particular question.Research Evidence
EEffffeeccttiivveenneessss
Research has demonstrated that stealing thunder is
an effective way to minimize or eliminate the impact
of incriminating information in many legal contexts.
Most legal experts are already aware of its benefits,
even if they are not aware of the reasons why it works,
and use it regularly in court.
In mock trial studies, researchers have found that
attorneys can benefit by stealing thunder. The benefit is
that stealing thunder diminishes the impact (usually
measured by percentage of guilty verdicts or probabil-
ity of guilt ratings) when compared with a “thunder”
condition in which the attorney’s adversary brings out
the information as evidence. Sometimes, the tactic
works so well that it brings verdicts to the same level as
that with no thunder at all, but effectiveness is usually
simply defined in terms of observing less damage than
the comparable thunder condition.
Stealing thunder has been found to be successful
with U.S. populations for criminal and civil trials and in
Australia with criminal trials, suggesting that stealing
thunder enjoys generality across trial type and across at
least two (albeit Western) cultures. The timing of steal-
ing thunder has not been shown to be pivotal; that is, it
can occur at the beginning of the trial or later on, as
long as it precedes the adversary’s revelation. Also, the
adversary does not need to reveal the damaging infor-
mation at all for stealing thunder to work. There havebeen no differences between stealing thunder with and
without the opposition’s discussion of it. Finally, the
“thunder” can range from something rather minor to
something seemingly integral and damning. Thus far,
there has been no research setting an upper limit on
how damaging the thunder can be for it to be success-
fully stolen. In a mock court case involving homicide
resulting from reckless driving, stealing thunder was
effective at reducing the damaging information even
when the defendant admitted to drinking alcohol and
veering into the oncoming traffic lane.
It should also be noted that stealing thunder works
in other nonlegal domains too, such as in politics
(with mock voters and journalists) and interpersonal
impression formation.CCoouunntteerraaccttiinngg tthhee
SStteeaalliinngg TThhuunnddeerr TTaaccttiicc
So far, the only successful attempt to counteract the
stealing thunder tactic is to, post hoc, reveal the tac-
tic’s use on the jury. If mock jurors were told during
closing arguments that the other attorney manipulated
their opinions through the use of the stealing thunder
tactic, stealing the thunder no longer dissuaded them
from its damaging implications.Why Does Stealing Thunder Work?
Recent research suggests that there are several paths by
which stealing thunder operates. First, in line with trial
attorney intuition, research supports that the thunder
stealer enjoys heightened impressions of honesty and
credibility. The reasoning would go like this: If the attor-
ney is willing to admit such damaging information with-
out being forced into it, then surely the attorney can be
trusted to present an objective and honest case.
Are attorneys also correct in assuming that stealing
thunder works because it allows the revealer to put his or
her own spin on the information, lessening its impor-
tance? To this question, the answer from available
research is no; self-favorably framing the information is
not necessary for it to be an effective tactic. It may help,
but the available evidence is not even supportive of this
notion. It appears that simply stating the incriminating
information bluntly, without any spin or admonishment,
is sufficient for the tactic to do its work on (mock) jurors.
What apparently happens is that the mock jurors, with-
out encouragement by the revealing attorney, put a
diminishing spin on the information themselves when“Stealing Thunder”——— 765S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 765