September 25th, 2007

Ahmadinejad and Cross-Examination

The appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University was the source of much angst in many quarters. But it was also an important lesson for trial attorneys.

Sometimes, we get witnesses who can’t answer a question directly, no matter how straightforward. The witness dodges and weaves and ultimately gives answers that defy credulity.

An example from press reports yesterday, was Ahmadinejad claiming that there were no homosexuals in Iran. Not one.

Sometimes the best way to approach such a witness is not to shut them down, but to let them talk. And talk. And talk. Let the jury see the evasiveness. And when the question isn’t answered, simply say, “Perhaps I asked the question poorly, let me try again.” Then ask it again the same way. And again.

Hand them all the rope they want to hang themselves.

 

September 24th, 2007

Personal Injury Trial Opening Statement — Telling The Story From the Middle

Every personal injury victim that has a case worth taking should have a story worth telling. And there are a million ways to tell it at trial.

The ability to tell that story — in an engaging manner that keeps the jury interested while you dot the “I”s and cross the “T”s of evidence — goes to the heart and soul of standing in the well of the courtroom. Those that mechanically travel the linear path from start to end are likely to lose the interest of the jury, and if their interest is lost, so too are your arguments.

When I open, I like to start the story in the middle. It is that particular moment in time, perhaps, when a patient walks into a doctor’s office, or a car crosses the double yellow line to the wrong side of the road. It goes to the essence of why you have risen from your chair to address the jury.

And when I say I like to start in the middle of a story, I’m not kidding. I don’t waste time thanking the judge, or the jurors for their presence in the courtroom. I don’t introduce myself or my client. Chances are, much of that has already been done anyway, but if not, I can get to it later. I need to tell them why they are here. Because they want to know.

You’ll never have greater command of the jury’s attention than that first 60 seconds of a trial. You can waste it with platitudes the jury doesn’t care about, or you can use the time wisely. And so I begin,

“Today we turn the clock back to January 5, 2004. Jane Patient is showing a hard lump in her breast to Dr. Gyno, explaining how she found it while washing herself in the shower, and of her intense anxiety over its appearance. Dr. Gyno, who Jane has trusted for years, examines the lump for a few seconds, and tells Jane not to worry about it.” 

The jury now knows why they were dragged from their homes or jobs to sit in this courtroom. They know, perhaps intuitively, that Dr. Gyno likely has a different version of events, but that this is the sharp issue of fact that will define the trial. They have also been presented with a moment of anxiety and stress by your client that may be the essence of one of your themes — betrayal of trust. Most importantly, they want to know the details.

From there one can fill in the before and the after, introduce people in the courtroom, witnesses that may appear, and slowly work into the story the various elements. But it is a story you are telling in the trial — often an emotional, gut-wrenching story that brings the concepts of life and death into sharp focus. This cannot be told in a rote beginning-to-end manner.

Sometimes finding the middle doesn’t seem easy. If you were telling your friend about running the NYC Marathon, would you start with your decision to run or the months of training that went into it? Doubtful. The “middle” of such a story may be the moment of greatest anxiety and anticipation: The starting line as you wait for the deep thump of the cannon while looking out across the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, where the great footrace starts.

Telling the narrative can take you into a thousand different directions. There is really no “right” way to do it, other than to stop orating like a lawyer and start talking like a storyteller.

Mark Twain, not a keen fan of attorneys, was a master. On this subject he wrote:

“Narrative is a difficult art; narrative should flow as flows the brook down through the hills and the leafy woodlands, its course changed by every bowlder it comes across and by every grass-clad gravelly spur that projects into its path; its surface broken, but its course not stayed by rocks and gravel on the bottom in the shoal places; a brook that never goes straight for a minute, but goes, and goes briskly, sometimes ungrammatically, and sometimes fetching a horseshoe three-quarters of a mile around, and at the end of the circuit flowing within a yard of the path it traversed an hour before; but always going, and always following at least one law, always loyal to that law, the law of narrative, which has no law. Nothing to do but make the trip; the how of it is not important, so that the trip is made.” 

(Hat tip to Bryan Garner, Quote of the Day, 4/11/07)

(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York.)

 

September 24th, 2007

Blawgers In The Jury Box

Blawg Review #127 is up at Anne Reed’s jury-related Deliberations. In what it surely one of the best round-ups of the year, she gives us the “17 Best Tips For Voir Dire.”

To get to those tips, she brilliantly analyzes individual law bloggers to see what kind of jurors they, or their subjects, would make.

When they hand out Rookie of the Year honors for 2007, Anne will be a top contender.

 

September 21st, 2007

Personal Injury Law Round-Up #29

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog brings you the week that was:

The pre-litigation section this week is topped by lawyers, and not their clients, this week…

Miami attorney Louis Robles was headed to his own criminal trial, and MassTorts Prof Howard Erichson explained why no one wanted to try the case. Which is one reason it was then resolved with a plea that includes a 15-year sentence (ABA Journal). Along the same lines, Howard Bashman rounds up posts on the guilty plea of class action king William Lerach; And today co-class-action King Melvyn Weiss was indicted , though Scott Greenfield is wondering where the big crime is;

Less prominent lawyers are also in the bad side of the news: Three New Jersey attorneys have plead guilty to orchestrating false insurance claims (New Jersey Law Journal). As always, the rotten apples in any particular group always make the rest of the group look bad. (On a side note, I wonder if a lawyer wearing scuba gear while filing a complaint might also belong here);

Point of Law points to a series in the San Francisco Examiner on the profession; which Robert Ambrogi at Law.Com Blog calls “blatantly one-sided;”

Ronald Miller discusses the way that insurance companies sometimes race to the door of a negligence victim to get a quick settlement, often offering pennies on the dollar. Does Miller think that’s a good idea? Guess first, then read. He also wonders if medical malpractice verdicts are fair to doctors;

No round-up would be complete without something on tort “reform” and this one is no different with Ken Shigley reprinting a critique from his friend Jay Cook of Athens, GA;

It’s not a lawsuit yet, but you can bet it will be shortly: The tasering of audience member Andrew Meyer during a speech by John Kerry has lit up the Internet. Why a taser was needed when the guy was already on the ground being held by six cops will no doubt be the subject of endless discussion, which promptly started (Simple Justice, Above the Law, Althouse, Concurring Opinions). Other issues, such as whether he had committed such a grave transgression as to deserve his initial removal and of Senator Kerry’s response are also likely to fill a few blog posts going forward. And it will certainly fill the airwaves, at least until the next celebrity arrest or missing blond-haired white girl;

Counterfeit drugs is an issue I cover from time to time. So add to this round-up the busting of a massive counterfeit drug operation in the U.K. (FightTheFakes) as well as more on drug diversion here in the United States, brought to you by The Whistleblower Law Blog and Pharmafraud;

In the Safety Department, Bob Kraft discusses a new radar being used in Texas: It catches tailgaters, not speeders. Hey, bring one to my neck of the woods!

Now on to the actual litigation…

Voir dire in New York is pretty straightforward, and often very fast paced (questioning 30 jurors in 60 minutes will do that). There is little time for shtick. Not so elsewhere as Walter Olson discusses at Overlawyered in the BP explosion case where attorney antics clearly soared over the line of legitimacy;

TortsProf Bill Childs has a particularly interesting wrongful death case against U-Haul (though “interesting” is most likely not the word the bereaved family would use);

In White Plains, New York, a man who served 16 years in prison for a killing he did not commit has brought suit in federal court against the police and medical examiner for fabricating evidence;

From the Department Of The Weird, you would think that a Nebraska State Senator suing the Lord Almighty would take top honors, or perhaps that He (or She) sent a messenger to answer the suit. But you would be wrong. On the Pharm reports that a man woke up during his own autopsy. Oops.

Just because a lawsuit starts doesn’t mean you will get to the jury: The family of Rachel Corrie — the Washington state activist that was killed by a bulldozer in Gaza in 2003 while the Israel Defense Forces were conducting activities — had their suit against Caterpillar dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mary Whisner at the Washington School of Law explains the basis of the dismissal;

In the Department of Merck: City and State of New York have sued Vioxx maker Merck alleging fraud. Merck is also in the news because a trial is starting in Florida regarding Vioxx (LaBovick Injury Law Blog) and, as Tony Sebok reports from his FindLaw column, the New Jersey Supreme Court decertified a Vioxx class action (part 1 of 2);

I’ve been following the September 11 suits coming up for trial in New York, and a bunch more just settled. There are 21 cases to go set for trial in the coming weeks;

In the Department of Appeals, a Florida doctor admits he gave false testimony at a trial (via Kevin, M.D.).

And finally, for the weekend:

(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)

 

September 19th, 2007

Can Disbarred Lerach Assist Other Attorneys?

At Overlawyered, Ted Frank writes regarding the sweet plea deal of famed and now disgraced class action lawyer William Lerach:

[N]othing stops plaintiffs’ firms from offering small fortunes to Lerach to act as a “non-legal consultant.”

This is not accurate. Assuming that Lerach is disbarred for pleading to a felony, any attorney that attempts to employ him, or accept legal advice from him, may themselves run in to trouble. An ethics opinion by the New York City Bar concludes:

It is clearly improper for a lawyer or law firm to employ a disbarred or suspended attorney in any capacity related to the practice of law. What acts constitute the unauthorized practice of law is a question of law for the Appellate Division.

Other states may differ, but it would seem that in New York both Lerach and anyone who tried to employ him in some type of capacity related to the practice of law would find themselves at great risk for additional troubles. I have to assume that if Lerach gives guidance or legal consulting advice to another attorney, that most if not all other states would find that to be the unauthorized practice of law.

And I don’t think that simply calling himself a “non-legal consultant” in his area of specialty, as Frank suggests, would hold any water with a court. Because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

[A Washington Post article on the plea deal is here]

(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)