The Floor for the Value of a Human Life is Flying High
You have a wrongful death claim and need an indisputable source of information to determine the minimum value of a human life. Wouldn’t it be nice if the federal government published minimum values for the loss of a human life? Well, they have! The U.S. Defense Department has made a conscious decision on this very disputed issue of value.
The federal government has determined that the minimum value attributable to the loss of one life is $250,000,000 (a quarter of a billion dollars). How can this be? Where can the supporting information be reviewed? Well, the F-22 Raptor costs approximately $250 million per jet, replacing the F-15 Eagle which costs $65 million each.
The federal government installs pilot ejector systems on every F-22 Raptor Jet fighter. The government does this to protect the pilot, not the plane. In order to save the life of a pilot of a Raptor F-22, the government chooses to sacrifice our most expensive combat jet airplane to insure the pilot lives to fly another day. The F-22 jet airplane costs $250,000,000 to manufacture. In spite of this huge cost, the federal government has chosen to install an ejector system to save the pilot’s life even though the ejection of the pilot will result in the certain and immediate loss of a quarter of a billion dollar jet airplane.
How about that… This analogy was raised some time ago by a trial lawyer by referencing the Eagle F-15. Well the minimum value for the loss of a human life has just gone up… at least in the eyes of the federal government.
Closing Argument – What to Do When Your Opponent Deals from the Bottom of the Deck
It is important to stick with the argument that you’ve planned out. Then aggressively and positively put forward your case. You don’t want to waste too much time responding to the other side’s argument to the detriment of their own. You want to help the jurors reach their own conclusions about the case with the use of rhetorical questions. Give the jury some credit and let them answer the questions you pose. If your rhetorical questions are properly framed, the answer will be obvious. Nonetheless, you need to be ready when the defense pulls the jury away from the real issues in the case and be ready to honestly and candidly deal with your case’s short comings.
Addressing Your Problems Before the Other Side Does
Address your own problems before the other side goes on the attack. This allows you the advantage primacy as the jury will hear your arguments first as they work their way through the case. Handle the questions likely to be raised by the defense in a forthright and confident manner and put forth your best analysis of the evidence in favor of your client.
1. Credibility and Sincerity is Your Greatest Weapon – State your position with conviction and sincerity. If you exude sincerity, you will gain the trust of the jurors in your analysis of the case. To succeed, your analysis must be an honest one that does not dodge the difficult questions. Remember, if you lose your credibility, you lose your ability to persuade.
2. Address Any Weak Points in Your Theory – You need to expect attacks and be ready to discuss them in a calm and confident fashion so the jury understands that the supposed problems are nothing. You should have laid the groundwork for this in your voir dire of the jury, as well as in your opening statement.
3. Last Words and Rebuttal – If you are the plaintiff or the state in a criminal case, you have the advantage of going last. However, remember that the scope of rebuttal is determined by the issues addressed in the closing argument of opposing counsel. When I was a law clerk right out of school, I saw team of attorneys for plaintiff decide that they would split the closing argument with one of them to discuss liability in the first half of their argument and the second attorney would address the issue of damages in rebuttal.
The Defense, realizing a tactical mistake made by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, chose to limit their argument to liability only and moved in limine to prevent the plaintiff’s attorney from arguing damages in rebuttal. The jury retired, confused as to whether they were supposed to determine only liability or both damages and liability. Ironically, at the end of the day, failure to argue damages did not seem to matter much. In that case the jury returned a record multimillion dollar verdict in a civil case for Lake County, Indiana. Don’t make this mistake. You might not be as lucky. See Indiana Jury Rule 27. This Rule provides:
When the evidence is concluded, the parties may, by agreement in open court, submit the case without argument to the jury. If the parties argue the case to the jury, the party with the burden of going forward shall open and close the argument. The party which opens the argument must disclose in the opening all the points relied on in the case. If, in the closing, the party which closes refers to any new point or fact not disclosed in the opening, the adverse party has the right to reply to the new point or fact. The adverse party’s reply then closes the argument in the case. If the party with the burden of going forward declines to open the argument, the adverse party may then argue its case. In criminal cases, if the defense declines to argue its case after the prosecution has made opening argument, then that shall be the only argument allowed in the case. In criminal cases, the party with the burden of going forward is the prosecution. In civil cases, the party with the burden of going forward is the plaintiff. [Emphasis Added.].
4. Save Your Zingers for Rebuttal on Points the Defense Must Cover – If you know there are points the defense must cover, I would recommend saving some of your best zingers, one-liners or analogies for rebuttal. Your opponent will be silenced, and your statements will not be directly challenged. There is nothing more powerful in terms of capturing someone’s attention and imbedding your message in their brain than a good one-liner; or, as I like to call them, a “zinger”. A “zinger” is described as, “a surprising or unusually pointed or telling remark.”
In today’s modern, fast-paced world, speechwriters and politicians often work on developing that one biting quip or sound bite which will disarm an opponent and grab an audience’s favor. Such comments often seem unscripted even though they were planned out well in advance. Attorneys can use “zingers” as a rhetorical device during cross-examination or in closing argument to drive a point home. “Zingers” are especially effective in rebutting your opponent’s argument. Your source material is everywhere. I urge you to look to quote books, comedians and popular culture for such material.
A recent book, The Notes, posthumously published for President Ronald Reagan, is a collection of quotes and anecdotes that Reagan gathered over his long career as a speaker and politician. He made a concerted effort throughout his life to look for and collect such quotes on index cards. President Reagan was the master of the one-liner. Who can forget Reagan’s “There you go again” quip he used to boomerang criticism of his position back at his opponent, President Jimmy Carter during their presidential debate in 1980. See:
Books containing anthologies of jokes are another source of such material. The master of the “zinger” is Samuel Clemens, more famously remembered as Mark Twain. In dealing with the topic of truthfulness and the use of statistics to bolster a weak argument, Twain observed:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
Another way of putting it according to Twain was:
“Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
Such a statement can quickly and effectively eviscerate an opponent and swings the audience or jury in one’s favor. Cultivate your inner one-liners; you won’t be disappointed and you may just “zing” your opponent the next time you are in court.
If you are on the defense, I would point out that after you sit down you will not be allowed to speak any further and cannot address the issues raised in rebuttal. You and your client have to trust the jury will scrutinize the arguments of the plaintiff the same way as the arguments of the defense.
Gerry Spence had a very compelling analogy is to drive home the point that his client’s liberty rested in the hands of the jury. He reportedly used the following analogy at the very close of his argument in a criminal case and then sat down:
“I’m going to tell you a simple story, about a wise old man and a smart aleck boy who wanted to show up the wise old man for a fool. The boy captured [a] little bird. He had the idea he would go to the wise old man with the bird in his hand and say, ‘What have I got in my hand?’ And the old man would say, ‘Well, you have a bird, my son.’ And he would say, ’Wise old man, is the bird alive or is it dead?’ The old man knew if he said,’It is dead,’ the little boy would open his hand and the bird would fly away. If he said, “It is alive,” the boy would take the bird in his hand and crunch the life out of it and then open his hand and say, ’See, it is dead.’ So the boy went up to the wise old man and he said, ’Wise old man, what do I have in my hand?’ The old man said, ’Why, it is a bird.’ He said, ’Wise old man, is it alive or is it dead?’ And the wise old man said, ’The bird is in your hands, my son.”
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury my client is in yours.”
5. Misdirection and Distractions – Often times, your opponent will attempt to get the jury to chase false issues and red herrings. Distraction, misdirection and appeals to prejudice are common tools of the defense. Ideally, you keep these improper arguments or evidence from the jury through the use of motions in limine. Sometimes this is impossible to do. What do you do to keep the jury from being mislead or distracted by meaningless side issues? How about a little verbal jujitsu! “Jujitsu” is the oriental “art” of manipulating the opponent’s force against himself rather than confronting it with one’s own force. You can do this verbal jujitsu by using effective analogies and counter-arguments. Below are a few of my favorites analogies and arguments. I hope they help.
STREET LIGHT ANALOGY: One dark evening a woman was on her hands and knees under a street light looking through the grass. A man walking by stopped and asked what she was looking for. “The keys to my car.” replied the woman. Having some time and feeling helpful, the man joined the woman in her search for her keys. After looking for quite a while with no success, the man asked, “We have been looking for well over 15 minutes here. Are you sure this is where you were when you lost your keys?” “Why no, I lost them a couple blocks back over there by my car” the woman explained as she gestured back towards her car. The man was puzzled and asked, “If you lost them a couple blocks back, why are you looking for them here?” The woman without keys responded, “Because the light’s so much better here!” That’s what the defense is did here, even though the real issues are two blocks back…
WHEN THE LAW & FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU: In law school they say if the facts are in your favor, argue facts; if law is in your favor, argue law; if neither law or facts are in your favor, argue like a lawyer and try to confuse the jury about what the case is really about. It’s the oldest trick in the book. The defense took a nice simple case that is straight forward and tried to make it complicated by pointing to a bunch of things that really have nothing to do with the case’s merit in hopes that you’ll forget what this case is really about…
OCTOPUS ANALOGY: The defense is just like an octopus hiding behind a cloud of black ink, they try to obscure your view with their arguments and B.S. However, all you have to do is just move straight ahead through the ink and you can see the truth once again. Most octopi squirt thick clouds of black ink to confuse predators. However, a type of Tremoctopus, or blanket octopus (murasakidako in Japanese), employs a different technique. When threatened, the octopus unfurls a giant sheet of webbing that trails behind like a cape. The webbing breaks apart rather easily when attacked — much like a lizard’s tail — and it gets wrapped around the predator’s face, giving the octopus a chance to flee. The defense took a nice simple case that is straight forward and tried to make it complicated by muddying the waters with a bunch of things that really have nothing to do with the case, in hopes that you’ll forget what this case is really about…
RED HERRING ANALOGY: A “red herring” is normally used by people to divert the attention of others from something important; from the central point that is being considered. A “herring” is a kind of fish that turns red only when it is “cured” – that is, when it is smoked and salted. Such a fish emits a very strong smell, and in the past criminals made use of red herrings to help them in their bid to escape the authorities. Convicts used the herring to help them throw dogs off his scent. Since the herring had a very strong smell, the police dogs followed the scent of the herring and not that of the escaped convict! The original expression was “drag a red herring across the trail”, but now it’s been reduced to “red herring”. That’s what’s happened here…
AD HOMINEM ATTACK: An Ad Hominem attack falls into a general class of logical fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected because of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. The reason this sort of argument is fallacious is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). These sorts of arguments appeal to prejudice and bias in hopes that you will ignore your sworn duty as jurors. They are wrongheaded and improper. Lady Justice stands there holding the scales of justice blindfolded. Lady Justice does not care if we are black or white, Christian or Muslim, male or female, rich or poor, married or divorced… Her sole concern is to fairly and impartially evaluate the evidence based upon the law. The defense’s personal attacks on my client have nothing to do with this case’s merits. It is bad enough that they have shamelessly injured my client, now they want to profit from insulting and degrading him in your eyes. These attacks have no bearing on what is a fair and just outcome given the facts and the law in this case which weigh heavily in favor of my client…
One book which has a number of great counter-arguments is Closing Arguments: The Last Battle. by Levin and Papantonio. This book is a well-organized collection of miscellaneous arguments and analogies used to explain and illustrate various legal issues and address common defense attorney arguments and tactics used to undercut, confuse, distract or sidetrack juries from the central issues in a personal injury case. Another fine book on the topic is The Lost Art: An Advocate’s Guide to Effective Closing Argument, by Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. this book is a treasure trove of great ideas, quotations, analogies and the law governing closing argument. Both books are more than worth the money.
6. Other Attacks to Address – here are a few more thoughts on how to deal with the defense when they deal from the bottom of the deck:
When the defense attacks through the use of innuendos- Another argument to present to a defense request for the jury to make his arguments for him when he sits down was suggested by the noted Attorney Moe Levine:
Countless attorneys, skilled and persuasive, each with their own acquired tricks to influence a jury by sowing the subtle seeds of cynicism. One of these is that when he sits down, he appoints you as his assistants and gives you permission to share with him the responsibility to represent his client in the jury room by answering each of my arguments to you. However, if this were truly the case, what need would there be to sum up at all? We would simply send you to the jury room and ask you to deliberate. This type of argument is not new to me. It is insidious and subtle. It asks you to take on the role of an advocate instead of that of a fair and impartial judge of the facts. Such comments subtly shape your view of the evidence. It moves you from a role where you are impartial, unbiased and neutral, to a role of where you act as an advocate for one side over the other. These techniques are subtle but effective.
Here is a response inspired by the approach taken by Attorney Rick Friedman, in his book “Polarizing the Case“:
He [opposing counsel] attacks by innuendo asking how can we know what the evidence shows when my client says he is in pain from this collision. He has had problems before. How can this be different? This too is subtle because what he is really saying is my client is a liar and a cheat and a fraud. He won’t come right out and say so because he knows such a statement is outrageous and unworthy of consideration. In fact it is insulting. Instead he subtly insinuates that something is not right, planting the seeds of cynicism in hopes that back in the jury room, they will sprout. This flies in the face of the evidence presented here. To buy into this argument you would have to conclude that:
Greed- If their Goal Was Money: My client and his spouse have come into this Court and both lied as well as all of those around who have corroborated their testimony. If this were about fraud would you not make greater claims? Wouldn’t you have run up unnecessary treatment? Would you be constantly complaining about your condition and claiming that your pain did not improve with treatment? Wouldn’t you do everything in your power to make you case more valuable? This has not occurred. My client has worked to get better and, in fact, has had periods of remission where his pain has improved even though it has never completely gone away.
Speculative and Unsupported Causes: He [opposing counsel] also has insinuated that something else must has caused my client’s symptoms. He does this with evidence of any sort and again subtly plants the seeds of cynicism by asking questions and suggesting facts that no one has testified exist. It is undisputed that my client complained of symptoms at the scene and told the investigating police officer of this. The defense has no Doctor who has said such things. If the medical evidence is there, he could have hired an expert to say this is so. Instead of evidence, he has asked that you guess and speculate. This is not allowed.
Unfounded Assumptions or Unsubstantiated Arguments – When this happens you might say something like this:
He thinks just because he argues and says something enough that we all will fall for his argument and treat his speculation like real evidence. I’d like to share with you some thoughts of one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln:
Some people believe if they say something is so, that it makes it so. Abe Lincoln had a pretty clever way of dealing with such arguments. On one occasion, Abraham Lincoln, as a young trial lawyer in Illinois, was arguing a case with a lawyer whose version of the facts came more from the attorney’s fervent imagination than the testimony and evidence before the Court. Lincoln in his argument turned to the other lawyer and eviscerated him:
Lincoln: “Tell me, sir, how many legs does a sheep have?”
Attorney: “Well, four, of course,” he answered. ”
Lincoln: “And if I call a tail a leg, how many legs would that sheep have?”
And the answer came back from the Attorney:
“He’d have five.”
Abraham Lincoln slammed down his hand on the jury box and roared:
“No! He’d still have four. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. So now let’s see how many tails you have been calling legs in this case.”
7. Bait the Other Side into Traps:
Sometimes, you can bait the other side into either embracing or rejecting positions that they have taken by innuendos. If you know that you can defeat the argument, call them out in the opening part of your argument and force them to commit. I have done this before to great effect and then pointed out the evidence which proved the defense wrong in rebuttal.
7.On the other hand, sometimes your opponent will raise a plethora of issues in hopes that you will waste all of your time chasing ghosts. Use the misdirection analogies above or use the following one:
Block Analogy: When I was a kid, my little brother, Bob, would sit and watch me build a really big impressive building from blocks. As soon as I got it built, he would wait for me to look away for a second and then run up and tear it down my magnificent building of blocks in less than a couple of seconds. He’d sit back and laugh while I chased around to gather back up the blocks he’d kicked around the room. I was determined and would not let him stop me. Instead, I would patiently rebuild my block building again, even better than before. Eventually, I quit chasing around the blocks and he quit because it was not fun anymore.
As a Plaintiff, you spend the trial putting your case together building it block by block – witness by witness. The defense attorney comes along and throws out a bunch of questions and issues in his closing knowing that there is not enough time to address every point. Just like my brother, he will try to tear down my case in a few minutes hoping that I will waste my time in my rebuttal chasing each block he kicked away. Well, I for one am not falling for that trick again.
Don’t you fall for such tactics either when you argue your next case.
What to Do When They Call Your Client a Liar, a Fraud and a Cheat.
The defense has enlisted the aid of a hired gun “expert” who insinuates or is going to testify that your client is a malingerer or a fraud. What can you do to address such tactics? Can you exclude the testimony? Should you address it head on or skirt the issue? Hopefully, this blog will offer some strategies to address this sort of tactic.
Motion in Limine
This is one approach that you could take. File a motion in limine to exclude such testimony. Indiana Rule of Evidence 704(b) provides:
Witnesses may not testify to opinions about intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.
In contrast, Indiana Rule of Evidence 608(a) provides:
Opinion and Reputation Evidence of Character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.
So how do you reconcile these two conflicting provisions? Well, Rule 704(b) applies to expert opinions, while Rule 608(a) deals with opinions of lay witnesses. The Federal counterpart to Indiana Rule of Evidence 704 is limited to criminal cases in instances where the mental state or sanity of the Defendant is at issue. This rule provides:
(b) No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.
The advisory committee notes indicates that this limitation prevents experts from invading the province of the jury in criminal cases where sanity or the mens rea is at issue. The rule prevents a confusing “battle of the experts” and preserves the decision on the ultimate issue of state of mind for the jury, rather than leaving it in the hands of retained experts. The rule promotes reliability by preventing testimony on the legal connotations of a medical diagnosis, a role the American Psychiatric Association admits that psychiatrists are not qualified to fill.See United States v. Austin, 981 F.2d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222, 1236 (10th Cir.2000) (Rule 704(b) is intended to prevent “intrusion[s] into the province of the jury”). Another court has similarly written:
The theoretical effect of Rule 704(b) is to make it possible for juries to find a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity even if no expert would draw that same conclusion. Conversely, the rule also permits juries to find a defendant sane and guilty even if every expert would opine that the defendant was insane. The purpose of Rule 704(b) is to have jurors decide whether the defendant was sane or not without being told what conclusion an expert might draw. United States v. West, 962 F.2d 1243, 1247 (7th Cir.1992).
While there is not much in the way of case law in Indiana interpreting this provision, at least one jurist. See Sears Roebuck v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2001)(upholding admission of medical testimony under I.R.E. 702 establishing post-concussive syndrome). In his dissenting opinion, Justice Boehm stated:
“Dr. Blinder testified, among other things, that in his opinion Manuilov was not a malingerer. This opinion was not based on observation of physical symptoms or scientifically valid tests, but on Blinder’s observation of Manuilov’s behavior and accounts of that behavior furnished by Manuilov or his counsel. Among the latter was the assurance that Manuilov had no criminal history or anti-social behavior.
Blinder told the jury that Manuilov had no criminal history and suggested he was not a “wife beater.” These assumptions were explicitly made a basis of his view that Manuilov was not a malingerer. This was not challenged under Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b), which provides that a witness may not testify as to whether another “witness has testified truthfully,” so, to the extent this is an issue, it is not presented here.”
. [Emphasis Added].
It seems likely that if a timely objection is made under Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b) to testimony regarding expert opinions on malingering that it, would be sustained, in an effort to preserve the jury’s autonomy in assessing the credibility of witnesses and avoiding problems associated with a battle of the experts. This dissenting opinion of Justice Boehm is the only discussion I have located on this specific topic in any judicial opinion in The State of Indiana. In Morse v. Davis, 965 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied., the Indiana Court of Appeals held that no witness, lay or expert, is competent to testify that another witness is or is not telling the truth.
The Direct Approach – Polarizing The Jury
The is an important book which provides a comprehensive approach to this problem and in fact fully embraces the issue and in fact welcomes a clear claim of malinger. The book is called “Polarizing the Jury“. by Rick Friedman. This book provides an innovative approach to trying cases. Too often we allow the defense in personal-injury cases to hide behind ambiguities and insinuate that our client is not being truthful. This book provides you with concrete examples to force your opponent to either embrace fully embrace the position; that your client is “a liar, a cheat and a fraud” or completely abandon this position.
The book provides a comprehensive approach to simplify your case, focus the jury’s attention and deal with a single coherent theme… Is my client telling truth about his or her injuries? At each stage in the proceedings the defense is forced to either clearly adopt the position that your client is “a liar, a cheat and a fraud” or clearly reject the position. The defense and it’s experts are forced through questioning or discovery to either adopt or reject this position.
The defense is not allowed to hide behind ambiguous positions or attack your client through innuendo or vague and insidious suggestions of doubt. The primary weapon to combat such experts and a defense are lay witnesses who can provide a clear before and after picture of changes in your client’s life by the defendant’s tortious acts. The issue in opening is framed as follows:
This is the person that they want you to believe is a liar, a cheat and a fraud.
You will hear a lot of witnesses and see a lot of evidence in this case. But in the end, there is really on what only one major issue you need to decide is my client a liar, a cheat, and a fraud?
That is the defense in this case.
If he is a liar, a cheat and a fraud, you should send him out of this courtroom without a cent. But if you decide he’s telling the truth, that he is truly injured, and the defense is attacking him in order to avoid paying for the harm they have caused, then your verdict needs to ensure that they do not profit from this tactic and you should consider what would be fair compensation for the injuries and losses my client has suffered and for the impact this collision and its impact on their relationship as husband and wife.
I strongly recommend that you obtain the book as it effectively helps you frame the issue in a fashion that it is understandable to a jury and combats the false doubts raised through the use of veiled attacks and innuendos against your client’s integrity and honesty.
Closing the Deal – Addressing the Attacks in Closing Argument
Here are some arguments to present to the jury in your rebuttal:
WHEN THE LAW & FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU: In law school they say if the facts are in your favor, argue facts, if law is in your favor, argue law, if neither law or facts are in your favor, argue like a lawyer and try to confuse the jury about what the case is really about. It’s the oldest trick in the book. The defense took a nice simple case that is straight forward and tried to make it complicated by pointing to a bunch things that really have nothing to do with the case’s merit, in hopes that you’ll forget what this case is really about.
Another argument to present to a defense request for the jury to make his arguments for him when he sits down as suggested by the noted Attorney Moe Levine:
Countless attorneys, skilled and persuasive each with their own acquired tricks to influence a jury by sowing the subtle seeds of cynicism. One of these is that when he sits down, he appoints you as his assistants and gives you permission to share with him the responsibility to represent his client in the jury room by answering each of my arguments to you. However, if this were truly the case, what need would there be to sum up at all? We would simply send you to the jury room and ask you to deliberate. This type of argument is not new to me. It is insidious and subtle. It ask you to take on the role of an advocate instead of that of a fair and impartial judge of the facts. Such comments subtly shape your view of the evidence. it moves you from a role where you are impartial, unbiased and neutral, to a role of where you act as an advocate for one side over the other. These techniques are subtle but effective.
When the defense attacks through the use of innuendos:
He attacks by innuendo asking how can we know what the evidence shows when my client says he is in pain from this collision. He has had problems before. How can this be different. This to is subtle because what he is really saying is my client is a liar and a cheat and a fraud. He won’t come right out and say because he knows such a statement is outrageous and unworthy of consideration. In fact it is insulting. Instead you subtly insinuate that something is not right, plant the seeds of cynicism and hope that back in the jury room they will sprout.
This flies in the face of the evidence presented. To buy into this argument you would have to conclude that:
A. If Their Goal Was Money: My client and his spouse have come into this Court and both lied. If this were about fraud would not you make greater claims? Wouldn’t you have run up unnecessary treatment? Would you be constantly complaining about your condition and claiming that your pain did not improve with treatment. Wouldn’t you do everything in your power to make you case more valuable. This has not occurred. My client has worked to get better and in fact has had periods of remission where his pain has improved even though it has never completely gone away.
B. Speculative and Unsupported Causes: He also has insinuated that something else must has caused his symptoms. He does this with evidence of any sort and again subtle plants the seeds of cynicism by asking questions and suggesting facts that no one has testified exist. It is undisputed that my client complained of symptoms at the scene and told the investigating police officer of this. The defense has no Doctor who has said such things. If the medical evidence is there, he could have hired an expert to say this is so. Instead of evidence, he has asked that you guess and speculate. This is not allowed.
I hope these strategies assist you in dealing with unfair attacks on your clients integrity.;
Analogies: The power of parables and fables
Want the jury to remember the key points of your closing argument? Having trouble making a point of law clear? The answer is to find a good analogy or anecdote to make your point. Some of the best teachers I had were those who used analogies to drive a point home. Jesus parables such as the “Good Samaritan” and the point it made has endured for centuries. Aesop’s Fable still have relevance and drive home the moral of the story centuries later.
So in your case what is the “moral of your story” and how can you drive it home? What particular legal principle are you trying to explain in a fashion the jury can understand and use? One powerful analogy I came across dealt effectively with the burden of proof in a criminal case:
“Some some of you may be asking: so what exactly is a reasonable doubt? Well, imagine you took a cat and a mouse and put them in a cardboard box and sealed it up. A couple hours later you return and open the box and find only the cat. You can conclude that the mouse was eaten by the cat even though you were not there to see it. However, let’s say instead that you come back a couple hours later and find a small hole in the corner of the box large enough that a mouse could crawl though it. You open the box and find just a cat. Did the cat eat the mouse and star to claw it way out of the box while you were gone? Or did the mouse in the darken box chew its way out of the box and escape? You may think you know what happen, but you just cannot be for sure. That hole in the box is your reasonable doubt. Well, just like the box in my story, the prosecution case has a hole in it and that hole creates a reasonable doubt….”
There are lots of similar stories out there. I Remember Atticus: Inspiring Stories Every Trial Lawyer Should Know by Jim Perdue is such a book. There are other books out there as well as websites which provide a treasure trove of ideas and inspiration. Watch the trials of other attorneys or find books with transcripts of famous closing arguments; they will likely contain powerful analogies or anecdotes.
You can even draw upon your own experience or that of others. As you come across such stories, copy them down for future reference. They will improve your ability to communicate with the jury and help jurors favorable to your cause remember your arguments for use during deliberations.