LEARNING FROM MISTAKES: INNOCENT, OR REASONABLY DOUBTFUL – MAKE UP YOUR MIND

Much is lost by the audience when lawyers speak to [or “at,” which is even worse] jurors.  As one article concluded, “the human mind does not always act like a sponge. In the legal setting, lawmakers, judges, and scholars hope but hardly expect that jurors exhibit perfect retention of trial facts, particularly in complicated trials.” 

TAKING THE STING OUT 2 – CONTEXTUALIZING ‘BAD’ EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION

Be it because jurors appreciate and value a lawyer’s candor, or because damage control or ‘spin’ is the better way to address painful or discomfiting facts, a direct examiner best serves the witness and the case by ‘fronting’ bad evidence.  [An earlier ADVOCACY AND EVIDENCE blog on the law and advocacy rationales for doing so

RULE 609 VERSUS REHABILITATION: DOES WITNESS IMPEACHMENT DEFEAT REENTRY INTO SOCIETY?

As Washington continues to grapple with the nuances of lying, some citizens suffer from a stigmatizing federal law that treats them as if they were convicted liars without any logical or scientific justification. Consider this scenario: An eyewitness foils a potential terrorist act, saving thousands of lives and earning praise from the community for bravery. The

DEATH PENALTY LESSONS FOR ALL LAWYERS: THE ART AND NECESSITY OF A MITIGATION INVESTIGATION

Lawyers who handle capital cases – those where the death penalty is the potential punishment – know that building ‘the case for life’ is at least as important as defending against a conviction.  Most capitally-charged cases are not brought unless the prosecution has strong if not overwhelming evidence of culpability and mens rea, so the

LEARNING FROM MISTAKES: IMPEACHING ON THE “LITTLE” CAN CAUSE “BIG” HARM

Why impeach a witness?  Hopefully, with good cause.  We impeach witnesses to weaken their credibility and/or to advance our own stories.  As described by Charles Rose in FUNDAMENTAL TRIAL ADVOCACY, “[a] properly planned impeachment is an effective exclamation point to a strong cross-examination.” But to be effective – and indeed to be warranted – another

404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Discontent

No area of law may be more vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of “other acts” evidence – often mis-labed “prior bad acts” evidence – in criminal cases. Evidence of an “act” that only conveys the actor’s character is inadmissible; but evidence with a non-character purpose may be admissible, subject