About Jules M Epstein (hehimhis) Stand In the end, you’ll still be you One that’s done all the things you set out to do … Stand For the things you know are right … [Chorus] Stand, stand (Stand), stand (Everybody, yeah, yeah) Stand (Stand, y’all), stand (Stand), stand (Ooh, ooh) “Stand” by Sly and the Family Stone (1969) – STAND
We teach in classrooms and mock trial courtrooms, talking to and sometimes with our students and then making them speak and demonstrate skills. But I suspect that many of us don’t have the time in our syllabuses to add a “let’s go to court” requirement. Some recent research suggests that we should. But before we
As much as I wish to resist it, the pull toward artificial intelligence becomes stronger every day. And as experiments proceed with LLMs (large language models) it may be easier to have AI ‘converse’ with humans, respond to the humans’ concerns, and ultimately change the humans’ beliefs. A recent series of experiments tested this –
If I were a true believer in the power of unanswered rhetorical questions the rest of this column would be blank. Or maybe not; because maybe the power of the question comes when it follows compelling information that guides the audience to the desired response. So – let me provide the information and then see
Rule 404(b) is the bane of the criminal defendant, although it is equally applicable in civil litigation. But criminal cases come with the added facet of the guarantee of the right to counsel, and with that right comes the obligation for counsel to be an effective lawyer, not just a present one. And when 404(b)
A new publication from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, NACDL – THE BIAS BOOK – UNPACKING BIAS IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM – had a curious segment on “proxemics.” Written by Texas practitioner Mimi Coffey, it had a provocative title – “Unjust Courtroom Practices: Always Seating The Prosecution Closest To The Jury.” Coffey
In his March 22nd MEMORANDUM targeting the legal profession in general, President Trump condemned lawyers for “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation…” https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court/. Much of the attack was against immigration lawyers where, without foundation, Mr. Trump claimed rampant fraud and meritless claims have supplanted the constitutional and lawful bases…[and the immigration system] is likewise replete with
Are there certain words lawyers should not use as they respond to accusations that a client engaged in criminal conduct? And as we teach advocacy skills to lawyers-to-be, should we be teaching about the pernicious nature of some words in the common discourse and say “you can be better than that.” My vote is for
I often claim, in Evidence lectures, that Rule 105 is the most powerful of the rules. Why? It justifies admission of almost any piece of proof, no matter how much collateral damage it carries, because “[t]he presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions,” Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635, 646 (2024), is an article of
This essay is part of a White Paper being submitted to the International Academy of Trial Lawyers in support of a motion calling for abolition of the death penalty. I have been a capital case litigator for thirty-plus years in Pennsylvania in the United States of America. What does that connote? Since the early