When the Dashcam Wasn’t Enough: How Quaker Focus™ Revealed the Real Verdict
Mock jurors saw what attorneys — and insurers — missed. The result? A fivefold verdict swing that changed how both sides value evidence.
A personal injury lawyer from a mid-sized firm in the Midwest reached out to us to test a case through Quaker Focus™. It involved an auto accident where the defendant’s insurance carrier was adamant the plaintiff was partly at fault, hinging their position on a dashcam video from the defendant’s vehicle. The footage seemed decisive—at least to the insurer. But the plaintiff’s attorney suspected there was more to the story.
He submitted the case to Quaker Focus™, our online mock jury tool, powered by Quaker Analytics. What came back surprised him: a number of jurors misread the video. Some thought the defendant had less time to react than he claimed; others saw inconsistencies between the footage and his deposition. This prompted the lawyer to shift strategy. Rather than make the video the centerpiece, he focused on the drivers’ testimony and credibility—especially where the defendant’s story didn’t align with what viewers could actually see.
Here’s what a few jurors had to say:
“I watched the dash video several times and compared it to what the defendant driver had said about the amount of time he had to avoid the accident. It just didn’t make sense to me and I decided the plaintiff’s version was more credible.”
“The collision couldn’t have happened the way the defendant said it did, even with that dash camera film showing that it looked like he didn’t have time to react. I came to the opinion that the defendant either didn’t remember what happened or wasn’t telling the truth.”
The case went to trial. The verdict came in at five times the last offer.
Now imagine being the defense team in that case. One of our defense clients, facing a similar situation, believed there was a decent chance a jury might go for the plaintiff—despite the client’s certainty of a strong defense. The lawyer offered to prepare a focus group submission at no cost, just to get buy-in. The carrier reluctantly agreed. The results changed their thinking. They upped the offer and settled the case—well above the initial valuation but significantly below what a jury might have awarded had it gone to trial.
Another plaintiff’s attorney, facing doubts about tone and presentation, decided to run two rounds of focus groups. The first version leaned into detailed visuals: surgical exhibits, a day-in-the-life video, and evidence of physical limitations. The second was stripped back—fewer graphics, more emphasis on the plaintiff’s own testimony about how her life had changed.
The difference was staggering. Group one delivered an average verdict of $525,000. Group two? $2.8 million, with some jurors going over $5 million.
Before testing, the demand was $1.6 million, with the client prepared to take $750,000 to avoid trial. The insurer had made a $100,000 offer and was posturing around $150,000. After seeing the results, the attorney moved forward with trial. The jury returned a $3.9 million verdict.
We often hear attorneys say a case “feels” like a $500K claim—or a defense verdict. But what you think your case is worth, and what jurors believe it’s worth, can be very different.
So we ask: Leverage Quaker Focus™ which costs $6,000 for 50 juror impressions, or $7,500 for 100. Worth it?
It was for them.