Re-served after a spill
Simulate 1000s of jurors in any venue. Today.
Upload your materials and watch a representative panel deliberate. See the verdict distribution, the themes driving it, and talk to any juror about their vote.
High
Defendant Verdict Likelihood
$475K
Typical damages
4.0/5
Confidence
Plaintiff
No majority
Defense
Pulls toward plaintiffPulls toward defense
Re-served after spill+49%
Served intoxicated+43%
Profit over safety+42%
Intervening crash+52%
Warnings adequate+38%
👩
Layla, 27
Plaintiff
👨
Luca, 61
Defense
👴
Tom, 74
Defense
Layla, what convinced you for the plaintiff?
He’d clearly had too much and they kept serving him. To me the bar set the whole thing in motion.
Ask any juror follow-ups, or group several into a focus group.
Luca, what would have changed your mind?
If there were video showing the bartender kept serving him after he was clearly drunk. Without it, I figured the crash was on the other driver, not the bar.
Ask any juror follow-ups, or group several into a focus group.
Anna, why for the defense?
She signed the waiver and chose to ride the bull. The bad break happened later in a separate crash. I couldn’t pin that second injury on the bar.
Ask any juror follow-ups, or group several into a focus group.
Patented
Proprietary method
SOC 2 Type II
Enterprise security
Am Law 100 firms
Trial and settlement strategy
National insurers
Try-or-settle and claims testing
Case diagnostics
+49%
+43%
+42%
+52%
+38%
+26%
A verdict is one number. The reasons behind it are what you use.
See which facts move jurors, which jurors to seat or strike, and how the panel reaches its decision.
What drives the verdict
Share of jurors citing each factor in their reasoning.
Served visibly intoxicated
Profit-over-safety pattern
Intervening criminal act
Warning signs adequate
Direct causation unproven
Juror profiles that shift the outcome
Deviation from the average vote, by profile: your voir dire map.
← Helps plaintiffHelps defense →
Age 50–59+27%
Some college+19%
Rare bar patron+13%
Bachelor’s degree+12%
Age 18–29+19%
Age 30–39+11%
Frequent patron+8%
Run it again
Change one thing. See what moves.
Because a run takes minutes, you can test variants you could never afford with a live panel: a different closing, a new exhibit, or a swapped expert, then watch the distribution shift.
What-if: revise the closing
Version A57%
Version B66%
Leading the close with the intervening crash lifts the defense share by 9 points. Re-run, compare, keep the better story.
Verdict distribution · 10,000 panels
Plaintiff23%
No majority20%
Defense57%
Not one outcome, a curve. The 20% hung rate is itself a signal worth planning around.
Everything a focus group gives you. At software speed.
Interview any juror
Ask the foreman to summarize, or press a holdout on what would change their mind. Keep the conversation going as long as it’s useful.
Profiles for voir dire
See which backgrounds and experiences lean for or against you, almost in real time, to guide your strikes.
Reads video too
Show witness or expert footage and learn who reads as credible and likeable, a fast way to compare experts or prep a witness.
Mock trials & theme testing
Try-or-settle exposure
Voir dire selection
Witness prep
Expert selection from video
Opening & closing A/B tests
Exhibit reactions
Jury dynamics
→
3 jurors changed their minds
Watch the panel deliberate.
Group your jurors and they argue like a real room, responding to each other, conceding points, and changing their votes. You see the foreman frame the debate, the lead voice that carries it, and the holdouts who don’t budge.
Deliberation · Bull’s Bar v. Plaintiff
👮
ForemanPatricia, 58
👨
Lead voiceMarcus, 54
👩
HoldoutRay, 67
👧
Dana, 31
👴
Sam, 45
👱
Tess, 29
6–6
Initial vote
8–4
After deliberation
👮
Patricia · Foreman
Let’s start with one thing: should the bar have stopped serving him?
👨
Marcus · Lead voice
Maybe. But her worst injury came from the crash, not the bull. That’s a separate event the bar didn’t cause.
👩
Ray · Holdout
He was visibly drunk and they kept pouring. I can’t get past that.
👧
Dana
Without the video I can’t assume they over-served him. Marcus has a point on the crash.
One persuasive juror moved three votes. Marcus reframed the second injury as an intervening cause, the single argument that flipped the panel from a hung 6–6 to 8–4 for the defense.
From teams using it on real cases.
“We ran our materials through GPT and it gave the logical verdict. The Viewpoints jurors answered the way real people do, with the same inconsistencies, and matched what we saw in our live mock trial.”
Trial partner, Am Law 100 firm
“The simulated panel matched our mock jury and surfaced broader themes than we’d tested for.”
In-house trial counsel, top-10 U.S. insurer
Published in DRI’s For The Defense · May 2026
Man vs. machine, decided live in Nashville.
At DRI’s 2026 seminar, a Viewpoints AI jury and a live human mock jury heard the same case. Both returned a 7-vote defense majority, and the AI surfaced the same themes plus broader ones. The live jury deliberated from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.; our panel finished in 15 minutes.
100×
faster than a human mock jury
FAQs for Legal Professionals
Bring your case. We’ll bring the jury.
We’ll build a panel for your own case and walk through the themes, the deliberation, and a juror chat.
Book a demo