October 10th, 2020

Facts with Feeling

“Then where Should I start?”

“Start what, for Christ’s sake?”

“Researching the history of the area. Of Derry Township.”

‘”Oh. Well. Start with the Fricke and the Michaud. They’re supposed to be the best.”

“And after I read those-“

Read them? Christ, no! Throw em in the wastebasket! That’s your first step. Then read Buddinger. Branson Buddinger was a damned sloppy researcher…but when it came to Derry his heart was in the right place. He got most of the facts wrong but he got them wrong with feeling.”

Stephen King, It (1986).

 Although facts are important what matters to the jury is feeling. We must feel the case so the facts are felt.  To relate to the jury with feeling we begin by discovering the story of our client. To do this we emotionally connect with what our client has gone through and how this feels. Once we accomplish this and accomplishing this takes immersion into our client’s life we arrive at the emotional level of the case.

This allows us to draw on our emotional experience and connect with the feelings of our client. When we feel with our client we have emotional honesty and convey this feeling to the jury. Through emotional connection we do this naturally without trying to sell the jury.We connect with the jury in a straight forward common sense manner, avoiding legalese and complexity. 

The feeling of our client which we mirror flows into the courtroom. The jury relates to this feeling because it is honest and true to life. The facts become subservient to the feeling of the case. Our client has this feeling, we have this feeling and our feeling is given to the jury. When the jury accepts our feeling as its own the facts merge into our feeling.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

September 24th, 2020

Success

To laugh much.

To win respect of intelligent persons, and the affection of children.

To appreciate beauty.

To find the best in others.

To give one’s self.

To leave the world a better place, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition.

To have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation.

To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived-

this is to have succeeded.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

September 9th, 2020

Cross Exam of Defense Forensic Economist

This cross examination discussion is from my cross examination notes in a survival action economic loss case.

Forensic Economist. Agree you develop estimates for numerous variables that affect the recovery in tort cases. Agree in a survival action these variables are: 1) Base Earnings; 2) Earnings Growth Rate; 3) Fringe Benefits; 4)  Personal Consumption; and 5) Discount Rate.

Base Earnings Rate. Defense forensic economists will start as low as possible. When they begin too low cover how the low base rate was arrived at and why a low base rate will lead to a lower economic loss amount. Demonstrate the rate of pay at which the economist should have started.

Earnings Growth Rate. Another way the defense economist can understate economic damages is through the “earnings growth rate.” Earnings do not grow in a linear manner until retirement. Typically they peak about ten years before retirement. Here time must be spent with our economist to determine and understand a fair economic growth rate. When the defense economist fails to do this and understates the growth rate demonstrate in cross examination this leads to an understatement of economic damages.

Fringe Benefits. The defense economist will start with a low base income rate and fail to add fringe benefits. “Data from the last few decades reveals that fringe benefits have increased significantly as a percentage of overall compensation. These benefits now account for almost 30%… of total compensation. ,,, Damage calculations must therefore include a valuation of fringe benefits.” David Gordon, A Forensic Economics Primer (Journal of Comprehensive Research).

Consumption. The defense economist may try to overstate personal consumption. This is because the amount of personal consumption is deducted from lifetime earnings before the discount rate is used to arrive at net economic loss. Future earnings of the deceased are adjusted for his consumption. See id. at 44-45. Consumption covers expenditures on goods and services, but does not include joint family expenditures. When possible the economist will look to actual expenses, but this does not work in the case of a young decedent. Have an understanding of how your economist is addressing personal consumption, and make sure it is solid. Hold the defendant economist to a similar analysis to prevent getting away with overstating consumption which results in understating net economic loss.

Discount Rate. The United States Supreme Court in Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (1983) addressed the issue of the proper discount rate in a personal injury case involving future economic loss. The Court reasoned in all personal injury cases involving future economic loss “it is reasonable to suppose that interest may safely be earned upon the amount that is awarded. Id. at 537. Thus, the ascertained future benefits should be discounted. The Court pointed out the discount rate should be one earned on the best and safest investments. Id. The injured plaintiff is “entitled to a risk-free stream of future income to replace his lost wages; therefore, the discount rate should not reflect the market’s premium for investors who are willing to accept some risk of default.” Id. The Court concluded the amount of future economic loss must encompass the amount the injured plaintiff would have earned during each year he could have worked but for his injury and the appropriate discount rate “reflecting the safest available investment.” Id. at 538. Have  the Jones case when cross examining the defense economic expert. This is because the defense expert will likely use a high discount rate arrived at at least partially from stock market return rates. Remember, the higher the discount rate the lower the net economic loss amount. The use of the high discount rate deflates economic loss contrary to our Supreme Court.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

August 3rd, 2020

The Tao of Trial (Spontaneity)

For connection with the jury I follow the Tao of Trial.

Preparation. In any phase of trial from voir dire to closing argument I prepare. Clarence Darrow memorized poems and quotes he planned on reciting during trial. I write out my opening statement, my direct and cross examination questions and my closing argument. I go into every phase of trial with at least an outline on what needs to be covered.

Rehearsed v. Spontaneous. Although I have a planned presentation for every phase of trial, I move through the trial with mindfulness at every moment of trial. This allows me to be with the jury in the moment, regardless of  preparation.

The Way of the Tao. Trying  the case in the way of the Tao is to recognize the concept of change. Change in trial does not usually occur because of my prepared presentation.  “Change is innate in all things and situations.” F. Capra, The Tao of Physics at 116 (5th Ed. 2010). Change occurs naturally and spontaneously. Id. “Spontaneity is the Tao’s principle of action, and since human conduct should be modeled on the operation of the Tao, spontaneity should also be characteristic of all human actions.” Id. 

Acting in Harmony with the Trial.  I act spontaneously according to my true nature. This means trusting my intuitive intelligence which is innate and in the moment. Rather than force myself, I adapt to the trial moment. “In the words of Huai Nan Tzu, those who follow the natural order flow in the current of the Tao.” Id. at 117.

Prepare and Forget.  To try the case at the highest level I discover our client’s story and show the story at trial. In each phase of  trial I have imaged the phase and prepared accordingly. Once I get to the phase I forget my planned presentation, I live in the moment and trust my intuitive spontaneous nature. I include the jury as we live together in the trial moment.

 

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

July 27th, 2020

Listen

It is easy for me to talk. It is easy to think when another is talking as I prepare to talk. My tendency is to think and talk, think and talk.

It is difficult to listen. It is difficult to internalize what a person is discussing without thinking ahead at the expense of listening. 

Listen is defined as: to hear something with thoughtful attention : give consideration listen to a plea. (Webster). “Thoughtful attention” is the key to what it means to listen. “Thoughtful attention” cannot be done without thinking only about the message. As the definition says when one is listening he is giving the message “thoughtful attention.”

I now try listen. This means I concentrate on listening. Listening changes how I process. This is because I hear the message with “thoughtful attention.” Two things happen: I internalize the message without filtering it with thoughts on response; and, the speaker intuitively realizes this and infers I care.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

July 11th, 2020

Defending the Deposition of Developmentally Disabled Client

Representing a developmentally disabled (DD)  client brings considerations beyond what we typically encounter. Here is how I address the deposition without first getting a protective order.

DD Defined. RCW 71A.10.020(4)  provides in part: “Developmental disability” means a disability attributable to an intellectual disability…[which] originates before the individual attains age eighteen, which has continued or can be expected to continue indefinitely, and which constitutes a substantial limitation to the individual.”

Competent to Testify. The DD client is competent to testify so long as he is capable of speaking the truth, receiving an accurate impression of it, has sufficient memory to retain it, has the capacity to express it in words, and can understand simple questions about it. Understanding and answering simple questions is key when the DD client must be examined.  In a deposition we have competing issues-the right to conduct legitimate discovery verses the right to protect our DD client from discovery abuse.

Witness Preparation. For the DD client  preparation is minimal. First hear the key elements of the story. Do not rehash the story. Tell the DD client the lawyer on the other side will ask questions about what happened: “Listen to the question.”  “Answer the question.” “Always tell the truth.”

Open and Close Door. We must allow opposition to engage in legitimate discovery. We must leave the door open so long as this is occurring. Once an area has been explored, we are confident the record reveals this, and further inquiry is oppressive, I close the door as follows:

CR 26 (i) Conference. With the DD client out of the room I begin a separate record: “Pursuant to CR 26(i) counsel must confer before the court will entertain any motion or objection regarding rules 26 through 37. This is a CR 26(i) conference.”

Court has Discretion to Protect. “While [DD Client] is competent to testify he is developmentally disabled. Pursuant to CR 27(a)(2) the court shall make such order as appropriate for the protection of the developmentally disabled party. Additionally as his attorney I have an obligation to protect [my client] from discovery abuse.”

CR 30(d). “An instruction not to answer is proper when made pursuant to CR 30(d).” “Pursuant to CR 30(d), at any time during the taking of a deposition upon a showing the examination is being conducted in such a manner as to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or harass the party the court may order the deposition cease.” “Upon demand of the objecting party the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a CR 26(c) protective order motion.”

CR 26(c). “The court may make an appropriate order to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. At this point in the deposition further questions concerning [area where we are closing door] constitute oppression [of DD Client].”

Instructing Not to Answer.  “I am instructing you [my client] will not  answer further questions (set forth area[s] where you are closing the door as you are confident the judge will grant a protective order prohibiting further discovery). I am doing this outside of his presence because I do not want to chill further legitimate discovery.”

Your Choice Counsel. “Counsel if you chose we will proceed to court now to discuss a protective order. Alternatively, continue to explore other areas of discovery. If you deem it necessary to seek further discovery into the area I am instructing my client not to answer we can cooperate on scheduling a protective order hearing at a later date.”

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

June 21st, 2020

What is Chance

At moments everything is clear, and when that happens we see that the world is barely there at all. It’s a perfectly balanced mechanism of shouts and echoes pretending to be wheels of cogs, a dream clock chiming beneath a mystery-glass we call life.

Let’s concede how our lives are jostled and spun around, that nothing is fixed, that even the ground we stand on is in motion. Underneith us there is only instability. Beyond us, there is only chance.

(Pieced together from  Stephen King and Jon Mooallem).

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

June 14th, 2020

Write and Speak with Conviction

Starting as a young lawyer and continuing  I consult Professors Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, for speaking and writing with power and conviction. Below are maxims from their book.

Place Yourself in the Background. According to professors Strunk and White good writing (and speaking) comes naturally without trying to effect a certain mood or temper.  Write and speak so the recipient is drawn to what you are writing or talking about rather than your emotional take on the subject. In this way the recipient is drawn to the substance.   If the substance is there the recipient will have an emotional response. 

Write and Speak Naturally.  Be yourself. Forget about imitating someone else.  Admittedly, we are all imitators and have been since babies.  The key is draw on our experiences rather than a copy of the source. This allows the message to be our message which is authentic.

Never Overwrite or Overstate. Stick to the facts without gilding or adding. When we overstate the reader or listener knows. The message is processed in a negative way like this person is trying to sell me something.

Write and Speak with Nouns and Verbs. Eliminate adjectives and adverbs. As stated by professors Strunk and White: “The adjective hasn’t been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place.” It is nouns and verbs, not their assistants, that give good writing and speaking its toughness and color.

Avoid the Use of Qualifiers. This means words such as rather, very, little, pretty, and probably to name a few. As stated by the professors: “These are the leeches that infest the pond of good prose, sucking the blood of words.” The use of the adjective “little” is particularly debilitating. “Little” is a badge of a weak speaker or writer.  The same is true with other qualifiers.

Active Voice. Speak and write in the active voice whenever you have a choice. The active voice “I will speak and write with conviction” has power. The passive voice conveys weakness: “I will try to speak or write with conviction.”

Write and Speak at High Level. When speaking use the ing.  Rather than “I’m thinken about doen it, ” say I am thinking about doing it.” This elevates you  to to a speaker with more education in the listener’s mind. The listener consciously and subconsciously hears your message as articulate. Eliminate slang in writing and speaking. This puts you at a higher level.

Make the Point and Stop. As stated by our professors “do not explain too much.”  When saying too much adverbs and adjectives creep into speaking or writing. This makes the message weak rather than strong. Shakespeare says: ” The lady doth protest  too much me thinks.”

Avoid Fancy Words. Speak and write like you are talking to a high school student. Avoid words of  trade that only fellow trade members know.  Avoid foreign language;  it sounds like you are trying to impress;  it is not impressive to deliver a message the recipient misses.

Remember John Wayne’s Maxim:  “Speak slow, speak low, and don’t  say too much.”

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

June 5th, 2020

Being Real

What is REAL asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. “Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?

“Real isn’t how you are made,” said the Skin Horse. “It’s a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.”

“Does it hurt?”

“Sometimes,” said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. “When you are Real you don’t mind being hurt.”

“Does it happen all at once,” he asked, “or bit by bit?”

“It doesn’t happen all at once,” said the Skin Horse. “You become. It takes a long time. That’s why it doesn’t happen to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But those things don’t matter at all, because once you are real you can’t be ugly, except to people who don’t understand.”

Margery Williams, The Velveteen Rabbit (1922).

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

February 29th, 2020

Great Cross Examination-Charles Laughton

 Cross examination is a challenging part of the trial.  It presents the opportunity to either turn an adverse witness into my witness or destroy the adverse witness. Either way my case benefits form successful cross examination.

My preference is to turn the witness into my witness. On destroying the adverse witness I do this in a way the jury will accept. I never embarrass, badger, or abuse a witness.

One of my favorite cross examination movie scenes is Charles Laughton in Witness for the Prosecution.  As we see from viewing this short but sweet cross, Laughton is able to destroy a fact witness in a way acceptable to the jury. He uses the classic inability to perceive facts to destroy the witness.

As we see in the clip Laughton begins by setting the foundation for inability to hear (and hearing a conversation is the basis for the adverse testimony). In setting the foundation Laughton begins by asking the witness in a booming voice if she recently applied for a hearing aid. In doing this Laughton uses change of voice (going into a less audible voice) to dramatically illustrate the witness’s hearing problem. When the prosecutor objects Laughton unfazed agrees to repeat the question.

In a booming voice Laughton restates his question with the witness admitting she has yet to receive her hearing aide. Continuing in his booming voice Laughton verbally summarizes the witness’s testimony. In doing this he paints the scene within which the witness is supposed to have heard a conversation that could not be heard by a person with poor hearing. Then by again lowering his voice Laughton demonstrates the witness’s inability to hear as she again cannot hear Laughton’s lowered voice. The damage is done. The witness is destroyed without being embarrassed, badgered or abused.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.