During a trial, lawyers look for any way to make their case better. Sometimes those lawyers try to influence the jury by hiring consultants.

Jury Analysts Inc., 315 S. Allen St., is a consulting firm that helps lawyers prepare cases by using social psychologists to pick jurors and determine how the issues of a case can influence the members, said Sarah Tanford, research director at Jury Analysts.

Based on demographics and social psychology, six consultants at the firm help lawyers prepare questions for voir dire -- a process in which prospective jurors are questioned about issues related to the trial to determine if they would be biased.

The amount of money a lawyer pays the analysts determines the extent of the firm's contribution to a case, she said.

Because consultants can be expensive, they are usually only employed in cases involving large settlements, including corporate financial litigation, anti-trust and product liability suits, Tanford said.

Jury Analysts and other consulting firms also participate in each step of the pre-trial preparation, Tanford said. She said other services include:

-- Conducting attitude studies. By surveying a portion of the population where the trial will be held, consultants determine the general attitudes of the community and show who would make a favorable jury member.

-- Holding mock trials using people with attitudes similar to the actual jury. Lawyers can determine what arguments will be most effective in the actual trial.

-- Preparing witnesses. Witnesses are coached on how to present their testimony in a convincing way, but actual testimony is not altered.

-- Evaluating the success of the analysis. After a trial, jury members are polled to determine how effective the consulting firm has been in influencing the decision-making process.

The firm's success is based not on whether a client wins a case, but on how much the jury has been influenced, Tanford said.

"We're just one part of the puzzle. I've come away from cases where I felt I had a major impact in getting (a settlement or sentence) lowered," she said.

Other legal professionals feel the influence of consulting firms are limited.

The evidence is more important than individual attitudes of the jury in determining the outcome of a case, said Centre County Court President Judge Charles Brown.

Judges sometimes limit the number of questions asked during the voir dire process to save time, limiting the effectiveness of consultants, Brown said.

Brown said he has only presided over one case in which he knew a consultant was being used. However, lawyers do not have to tell a judge when a consultant is being employed.

It is not unethical to employ private analysts to prepare witnesses and evidence for trial, Brown said. In fact, providing psychological information about issues involved in a trial can only increase fairness, he added.