Text messages are often more accurate in detailing a chain of events than a witness’ post-occurrence memory and time-of-trial reconstruction of the incident(s). Yet text messages are not neutral; they may be subject to manipulation or alternative interpretations depending on how they are displayed and “animated,” i.e., brought to life. This capacity to give different
Lawyers tend to look to other lawyers for insight on how to best persuade in the courtroom. We read the speeches of legendary advocates; we go to watch closing arguments in high-profile cases; and we bunch up at CLEs as we are regaled with war stories and the ‘wisdom’ of masters. This insular approach to
Law school fails to teach much about the needs of non-lawyers, and in particular the needs of a witness. No one places the law student or emerging lawyer in the shoes of a witness, be it in a courtroom or at a deposition, and says “experience this from the witness’ point of view.” So when
JURY SPEECH RULES is a handy, and easily read and digested, guide to the ‘rules’ for courtroom speeches – the opening statement and the closing argument. It is a mostly correct distillation of decades of wisdom on story-telling, primacy and recency, and persuasion. And it has an added value, a discussion of ethical concerns that
“Defense Lawyer Confidential” promotes itself as, and promises an introduction to, the real world of criminal defense representation with “bridge into practice” insights. The author suggests it as law school appropriate and as a “must read for any student who is interested in criminal defense work.” The sad but true review is that it satisfies
The five-justice North Dakota Supreme Court has posted on its website a 10-page collection of “Appellate Practice Tips.” University of Missouri Law Professor Douglas Abrams, author of EFFECTIVE LEGAL WRITING: A GUIDE FOR STUDENTS AND PRACTITIONERS (West Academic Publishing 2016), identifies and expands upon each of the tips. As with Irving Younger’s “Ten Commandments of
Why title a book “The Modern Deposition?” The Rules of Civil Procedure have changed only modestly over the past 20 years; the technology to record depositions is more varied and adroit, but not enough to warrant a new book; and the deposition remains the tool of civil practice, without an expansion into the criminal domain.
Do judges change their rulings on motions to suppress depending not on the law but on the biasing effects of how terrible the crime is and how pivotal the evidence will prove to be? Do juror biases affect how they analyze legal concepts such as the “substantial step” element of attempt? The answer to each
What value does a juror place on proof that a test – for gunshot residue, for latent prints, for DNA – produced no results? This article uses mock juries in a controlled setting, with careful alteration of variables, to discern how jurors respond. What were the findings? In one sense, the obvious: The first question
Appellate arguments, and judicial opinions, often proceed from the premise that “it is never easy to prove a negative.” But that’s not always the case, as there is a difference between the “philosophical and arithmetic definitions of the word negative[.]” This article is an essential first step to understanding the difference, both to inform current