Two recent decisions reflect remarkably different values in how trials are conducted – one addressing whether we need judges who are awake and alert, the second whether it is permissible to attack defense counsel in a criminal case as a truth-twisting purveyor of information. Let’s start with the judges. On November 27, 2019, a unanimous
Tremendous time and effort are spent on word choice – drafting the perfect motion in limine, opening statement, and/or closing argument. However, it may be that the more time spent on how the ideas are delivered will enhance persuasion more than the words used. This is brought home in a new research paper, How The
How do we assess the expert we consult, the one we hire and proffer, or the expert we will be confronting? If it is the opposing expert there will be a deposition (in a civil case) and testimony from prior cases as well as intelligence gathering from attorneys in your field who have faced the
We think of experts as those who have studied and then put their knowledge to use – they have hands on experience, be it as the treating psychiatrist, the engineer who has built bridges, or the agricultural agent who has worked with farmers foe decades. And when selecting an expert for deposition or trial –
In a recent (October, 2019) manslaughter trial in Philadelphia, the jury heard a lot about the victim, information not limited to conduct at the time of the fight that led to his death. The jury heard, as an early defense witness, a bartender from Florida. Although the death occurred in 2018, the jury heard about
The joke for criminal defense lawyers, such as it is, is the response to the question “how do you represent guilty people?” The answer/punchline is “that’s easy; it’s representing someone who is actually innocent that causes nightmares.” You may ‘lose the case,’ but your client loses freedom. As the original trial lawyer for Willie Veasy,
Monthly LEXIS updates under the search term “primacy w/2 recency” produced a hit recently from a California guide on defending Drunk Driving cases. Here is what it claimed: Traditional wisdom had it that the best approach in Opening was to not present one, or at the very least to reserve the Opening. Studies of primacy and recency have convinced
A GUEST COLUMN BY PROFESSOR SARA JACOBSON This Fall I helped conduct a trial advocacy training in a major metropolitan city on the East Coast. It’s a training I’ve helped with off and on for over a decade, an advanced training geared toward lawyers who already have courtroom experience. We were using the same NITA
On September 11, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard argument in two cases raising a challenge to the death penalty process in this Commonwealth as so dysfunctional as to violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. It will decide first whether to exercise its King’s Bench authority and hear the substantive claims; and if so whether the system is
It is arrogant to claim that what happens in the United States is the best – or here, worst – in the world. But the following transcript excerpt displays such a deficient performance that it may be fair to claim the title of “world’s worst,” and certainly lawyers in other countries would be happy to