Social networking by jurors can result in a new trial, creating increased expense for the parties.
The American College of Trial Lawyer has issued a brief report on this issue, and has proposed several instructions to prospective and empaneled jurors.
For example, ACTL recommends that this language be included on summonses to prospective jurors:
Don Maciejewski has published an article entitled "Dealing With Difficult Opposing Counsel – How to Tame "Rambo’" in the January / February 2012 edition of Litigation Commentary & Review.
Don includes 13 helpful hints on how to deal with jerks. As he correctly notes, "Rambo is probably well-skilled in lying and cheating and does not play by the rules."
There are lots of good suggestions in this article. Here is a sample:
Paul Luvera has a nice article on his Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips blog that discusses virtual focus groups.
He mentions three different services that lawyers can use to test their cases: Virtual Jury.com; Trial Juries, and eJury.com. eJury has a sample case presentation available for review that includes not only a sample verdict form but also a list of questions that call for narrative answers from the jurors.
Does anyone use these services? Virtual Jury’s client list is impressive to say the least.
The Cross-Examination Blog has published a helpful checklist on avoiding errors in preparing for and conducting cross-examinations that will be helpful to trial lawyers handling tort cases.
The blog is written by Ronald Clark, the author of the Cross-Examination Handbook, which I reviewed last year. Here is the review.
Ronald recommends that we AVOID:
Jury Research Institute has a fine article about the all-important task of witness preparation.
The article breaks down the preparation process into three stages:
You will find that this article will help you in your efforts to prepare your witnesses for trial.
The Federal Rules of Evidence have been "restyled" effective December 1, 2011. The objective was to make the rules simpler to understand and use without substantively changing the meaning.
The Federal Evidence Review has a free PDF that not only contains the new rules but also links to legislative history, links from the index to each rule, the ability to search the rules within the PDF using Adobe’s "search" tool, and other benefits as well.
You can download the PDF here. The old version of the rules may be seen here.
Two lawyers in Connecticut recently made news when they elected not to put on proof of economic losses in a trial of a personal injury case, instead focusing on non-economic damages. The result? A verdict for $10 million in non-economic damages.
The case arose when representatives of Segway failed to give the plaintiff a helmet during a test drive of the device. The plaintiff fell, hit his head, and had a mild traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff lost his sense of taste and smell. There was no notable loss of mental functioning.
The Connecticut Law Tribune reports that "Adelman [one of the plaintiff’s lawyers] said he didn’t want to distract the jury with claims for medical treatment, lost income or attorney fees. If the jurors had those figures, he said they would not be tempted to use a formulaic multiplier of economic damages to arrive at non-economic damages. ‘We didn’t want the jury to be thinking about what the doctors get, ‘or what the lawyers get,’ said Adelman, “because the case was about John.’”
Alexandra Rudolph has written an informative article titled "Trial Techniques: What Lawyers Should (and Should Not) Worry About in the Courtroom."
Ms. Rudolph, the owner of a Chicago jury research firm, believes that "attorneys spend too much time worrying about things they can’t control, such as opinions expressed during jury selection, and too little time considering how their trial team appears to the court or what a judge might find most helpful."
The Number One thing lawyers should stop worrying about? "Graphics will make me look ‘too slick.’"
PowerPoint is a useful tool at the trial of personal injury and wrongful death cases. However, there is a right way and wrong way to use it.
This video by Don McMillian points out some of the errors one can make in the use of PowerPoint.
Does this video bring home errors you have made with this software? I must plead guilty to several errors described on this video.
I read a tweet the other day suggesting that a lawyer should have had an appellate lawyer present at trial. I cant remember who wrote the tweet but, if I had to guess, it was an appellate lawyer.
I guess an appellate lawyer will do you some good at trial – if you don’t know the law of preserving issues for appeal. Then again, if you don’t know that law of preserving issues for appeal, you lack knowledge of an important part of trying a case.
The law of preserving issues for appeal is not that complicated. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I suppose, but in Tennessee it is pretty easy. For example, on evidence issues, you must make a timely, specific objection on the evidence point and are best served by stating the grounds for your objection. You must insist upon a ruling to the objection. If a judge prohibits you from introducing evidence, you must make an offer of proof out of the presence of the jury. All of this must be on the record.
Day on Torts