24 Tuesday Apr 2018
Posted in Jury Persuasion, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on Why The Jury Blamed The Injured Plaintiff.
Understanding Why Jurors Want To Blame The Injured Plaintiff, by Paul Luvera, Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/understanding-why-jurors-want-to-blame-the-injured-plaintiff
There are times when it simply does not make sense that the jury did not sympathize with the plaintiff. Yes, there can be legal reasons for the outcome, but there are certain psychological motives as well. This post does an excellent job of identifying and explaining them. -CCE
25 Sunday Sep 2016
Posted in Jury Persuasion, Opening Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Storytelling, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on How to Persuade the Jury to Blame One Party Over The Other.
Plaintiffs Should Always Start By Attacking The Defendant, by Paul Luvera, Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips Blog
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/plaintiffs-should-always-start-by-attacking-the-defendant
[I]n the 1990’s, trial lawyers Gregory Cusimano and David Wenner investigated the issue. They presented fact patterns to hundreds of focus groups around the country and in that process they observed a consistent pattern: when they began their opening statement by talking about the plaintiff, jurors would blame the plaintiff for what happened. But, if they started with the defendant’s conduct, jurors blamed the defendant and placed much less blame on the plaintiff.
21 Sunday Dec 2014
Posted in Attorney-Client Privilege, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Depositions, Direct Examination, Discovery, Interrogatories, Litigation, Making Objections, Negligence, Personal Injury, Plaintiff's Counsel, Privilege and Confidentiality, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on May Defense Counsel Ask Plaintiff Whether He Was Referred to Doctor?
“Did Your Attorney Refer You to that Doctor?” by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog
In a recent Delaware County Court of Common Pleas decision in the case of English v. Stepchin, No. CP-23-CV-786-2014, 101 Del. 424 (C.P. Del. Co. Nov. 12, 2014 Kenney, P.J.), President Judge Chad F. Kenney upheld a defense attorney’s right to inquire of a personal injury plaintiff whether or not plaintiff’s counsel had referred the plaintiff to her treating physician.
This issue came before the court on a Motion for a Re-Deposition of the plaintiff by defense counsel.
At the original deposition, plaintiff’s counsel objected to the defense counsel’s question to the plaintiff as to whether or not plaintiff’s counsel had referred the plaintiff to her treating physicans. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that such discovery was barred by the attorney-client privilege.
In his Opinion issued on the matter, President Judge Kenney held that, ‘whether counsel referred Plaintiff to her treating physicians does not constitute legal assistance so as to justify properly invoking the attorney-client privilege.’ More specifically, the court found that whether an attorney referred his client to a medical provider for treatment cannot be considered to have been a communication from an attorney to his or her client associated with the rendering of a legal opinion or the provision of legal services so as to invoke the applicability of the attorney-client privilege.President Judge Kenney also stated that any asserted privilege ‘failed to outweigh the interest of the accessibility of material evidence to further the truth-determining process’ at a trial of a personal injury matter.
The Court granted Defendant’s Motion and ordered a 2nd deposition limited to the issue of who referred Plaintiff to her treating physicians.
Anyone wishing to review this decision, may click this LINK.
08 Saturday Mar 2014
Posted in Appellate Judges, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Direct Examination, Exhibits, Experts, Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Persuasion, Law Clerks, Litigation, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witnesses
≈ Comments Off on Like Us, Judges and Juries Get the “Munchies.”
Tags
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Judges, Juries, Lunch and Snack Breaks, Persuasive Litigator Blog, Persuasive Trial Strategy, Rocket Science Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques, Trials
Time Your Arguments to the Judge’s Lunch Breaks (and Adapt to All Decision Makers’ “Cognitive Load”), by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog
It comes as no surprise that a hungry person, be it the judge or members of a jury, find it difficult to concentrate and focus on your client’s case. Long stretches of testimony and argument are hard enough to follow, especially if the case is complex with numerous exhibits and witnesses. Regardless how comfortable the chair, sitting for long periods trying to listen carefully to a case is hard work.
There is more than one way to consider your audience at a trial or hearing. Persuasive argument is one. Excellent trial preparation using technology is another. Considerate and well-timed rest and meal breaks are another tool that can be used to your advantage.
The Rocket Science Blog mentioned in this post can be found at http://tinyurl.com/3dg5e8n. – CCE
Anyone who argues in front of judges knows that human factors can weigh as heavily as the law in determining your judge’s decisions. But it is still possible at times to be surprised at the degree of influence, as well as the banality of those human factors. Case in point: lunch and snack breaks. Recent research discussed in the excellent Not Exactly Rocket Science blog appears to show that judges’ decisions vary as a direct effect of the proximity of their morning snack or lunch break. In case you are using your morning break or lunch hour to read this post, I’d like to make it worth your while by applying the study findings to the more general issue of your decision-makers’ mental work load and offering some recommendations for anyone who needs to make arguments to a potentially fatigued audience. . . .
02 Sunday Mar 2014
Posted in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Exhibits, Experts, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Litigation, Making Objections, Mock Trials, Opening Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witnesses
≈ Comments Off on Lawyers — First Impressions Stick!
Tags
Bad Impressions, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, First Impressions, Mock Trials, Persuasive Litigator Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques, Visual Images, Witnesses
Expect First Impressions to be Carved in Stone, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog
Please note additional links on first impressions, overcoming bad impressions, and using visual images to create a first impression at the bottom of this post at the Persuasive Litigator website. -CCE
We’ve all heard the old saying: You never get a second chance to make a first impression. It is true that when meeting someone new, our brain is quickly putting them into a number of categories. Their background, intelligence, friendliness, attitudes, trustworthiness, and a myriad of other aspects of character are all on their way to being locked into some pretty durable assumptions. In a legal setting, where a juror is reacting to a witness on the stand for example, we might want those credibility determinations to be made over time, informed by the full scope of the testimony. But don’t count on it. . . .
22 Saturday Feb 2014
Posted in Cross-Examination, Damages, Exhibits, Experts, Litigation, Motor Vehicle, Personal Injury, Plaintiff's Counsel, Product Liability, Trial Tips and Techniques, Video Deposition, Witnesses
≈ Comments Off on More On Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive.
Tags
Accident Reconstructionist, Cross-Examination, Daubert Rule, Engineer, Expert Witness, Filing Fees, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Video Deposition
Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive, Pt. II, by Gregory H. Haubrich, Foshee & Yafee, Butter’s Blog
http://greghaubrich.com/2014/02/13/why-lawsuits-are-so-expensive-pt-ii/
In my previous edition of Butter’s Blog, Part I explored why lawsuits are so expensive. In Part II, we are going to break down the costs of getting your case to trial. To get a rough estimate of what your law firm may spend handling the case, we must first look at what kind of case it is.
17 Monday Feb 2014
Posted in Appellate Judges, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witness Preparation, Witnesses
≈ Comments Off on Intolerance Is A Door That Swings Both Ways When Presenting Your Case.
Tags
Conservatives, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Judges, Juries, Liberals, Persuasive Litigator, Politics, Trial Tips and Techniques
Account for Ideological Intolerance, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator™
It’s Valentine’s time again. It’s a holiday of love, but in the political world, we’re moving out of yet another debt ceiling standoff and there is no love lost between the two sides of the spectrum. Liberals point to yet another, albeit failed, attempt to hold the country’s full faith and credit hostage, while conservatives point to yet another increase in an already staggering national debt. Neither side can understand the values, arguments, and priorities of the other. And that’s just the debt. Add in social welfare programs, marriage equality, and — as the actual sign from an Arizona gun shop above testifies — gun control, and you’ve got a pretty bitter divide. Polling shows that we are politically more ‘tribal’ than ever before. As we’ve noted in earlier posts, liberals and conservatives appear to use their brains differently when assessing risk, and are resistant to applying basic empathy across the political aisles. . . .
The Researching Paralegal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.