Bruce Springstein’s inimitable lyrics speak of someone “blinded by the light.” They came to mind, sadly, when reviewing a defense lawyer’s attempt to impeach a cooperating witness. In that case, the lawyer followed a model that is a recurring problem in trial advocacy, lawyers “blindered by the lie.” What do I mean? Decades ago I
A cardinal principle for lawyers is that words count. A closing argument may run afoul of the law when “I believe” slips in; a case may be overturned when a judge ad-libs a jury instruction; and of course a jury may be misled when words are incomprehensible – the bane of most jury instructions –
Think of a Viking. A four word command, a simple task. And what pops into your mind? Is it something like this picture, like the fierce warrior Leif Erickson? That’s what transpired when the grave of a Viking was discovered in 1878. This is what was seen (an artist’s rendering): The assumption – a male
Civil and criminal court litigators – beware. A new decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in a criminal appeal has radically upset the calculus lawyers must perform if they lose a motion in limine and want to decide whether to front (or “own”) the bad fact. Doing so may now cost a litigant the chance
Many may believe (depending on the jurisdiction or the judge) it to be fundamental – indigent defendants are entitled not only to free counsel but to the essential services needed to investigate and present a defense: funds for an investigator to track down witnesses, funds for a psychiatrist or psychologist for a mental health defense,
Crotch-grabbing. “Bimbo.” These were highlighted facets of two closing arguments in high-profile criminal trials in the calendar year 2022. Were they a reflection of our national political discourse; an attempt to be aggressive as part of zealous representation; or offensive, stupid and ineffectual? The final term – ineffectual – has no metric; it is impossible
Capital cases – those where the death penalty was sought and then imposed – can last for decades. There are at least two reasons for this – they deserve the greatest attention and review because life is at stake; and the poor lawyering that led to so many capital convictions warrants that review and takes
The following “one line lessons” for excellence in advocacy were contributed by members of the national trial advocacy listserv. The submissions are organized topically, with the contributors’ names preceding their contributions. CASE THEORY Brett Bayne Shamelessly stolen from Herb Brooks and the 1984 Miracle on Ice, he reportedly strolled the bench behind the players
It is a regular occurrence in trials for one party to approach the Judge and say “Your Honor,” they just opened the door to X; may I now ask questions or present evidence on that point?” The response may be more reactive than reasoned, and that is because we rarely discuss the legal principles underpinning
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