David Raack[1] Although some law schools have robust and well-developed advocacy programs, a significant number don’t. Schools without a strong program may wish to develop one, and this article addresses that scenario. (The term “advocacy program” is used here to include mock trial, moot court, and ADR components.) The purpose of this discussion is
Is it impermissible to use the term “victim” in a criminal trial? On its surface, the question may appear silly – the trial has a victim [accuser] and defendant [accused]. Yet the issue arises periodically, and was highlighted in recent trials. First, who or what is a victim? According to Black’s Law Dictionary, it is
Temple Law, the plaintiffs’ Bar, and many of the finest advocates mourned the recent loss of Herbert ‘Herb’ Kolsby. A giant of the Philadelphia Bar and a 1951 Temple Law graduate, Kolsby litigated personal injury cases on both small and grand scales, taking on auto and drug manufacturers. But Kolsby was so much more than
Rarely is a cross-examination limited to an attack on credibility – there are often multiple goals which may include eliciting positive/supportive facts and ultimately telling or reinforcing the ‘story’ the witness’ examiner is presenting. The recognition of multiple goals of cross-examination is nothing new. Despite early emphasis on cross-examination as being needed to expose “mendacity,”
The below advice was developed for a lecture to Temple trial team members as work to ‘up our game’ in various aspects of courtroom advocacy. The advice, with minimal modification, is also useful for practicing attorneys. Why concentrate on the opening statement? It is where we are judged first, and our performance shapes how
Given that the Rules of Evidence were developed without regard to, or prior to the development of, principles of cognitive science, one might expect courts to use scientific research to mediate those rules and, especially, to inform the exercise of discretion. But as two divergent lines of cases show, although each involves how a visual
Too often, the mindset in negotiating is completely adversarial – we are good, they are bad; we are right, they are wrong; we are just and they are unjust; and, perhaps most perniciously, we are reasonable and they are not and will not be so. Even Ronald Reagan didn’t posture in this way – his
Consider an argument you made to your jury just before they deliberate and hand you your hard-fought victory. Did you persuade them or did you convince them? Perhaps you just dissuaded them from finding for the other side. However, if you dissuaded them, why can’t you also say that you dis-convinced them? Or disvinced them?
It is conventional wisdom that a story of actual innocence – there was no crime, the wrong person is on trial, the accused acted in self-defense – is the preferred modality in criminal cases. Why? An argument of ‘they can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt’ may come across like a schoolyard taunt – my
The stronger and more compelling the case against a criminal defendant, the more cohesive the picture of guilt painted by the prosecution in opening statement, the more defense counsel must have something coherent to say in response – an alternate story, a more complete story, or an attack on the veracity and integrity of the