Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

In a hotly contested liability case, it is often easy for counsel to forget that the reason they are there is to achieve a favorable monetary verdict for their client. It is tempting sometimes to spend far too much time discussing liability thereby leaving counsel with little or no time to discuss damages. The reason we are in Court is to try to get a verdict to compensate our client for the damages they have sustained. Obviously, we have to discuss liability. However, we should never discuss liability exclusively and should always reserve a sufficient amount of our time in summation to devote to the subject of damages.

If the case is a close one and it is necessary that counsel discuss liability extensively, I would suggest that counsel discuss liability at least seventy percent (70%) of the time and reserve thirty percent (30%) of his time for damages. If counsel believes that liability is fairly strong, counsel might wish to divide his arguments between fifty-five and sixty-five percent (55-65%) liability and thirty-five to forty-five percent (35-45%) damages. If liability is strong, the counsel might wish to reverse this percentage and focus more on the damage equation to the case. Whatever the issues involved, however, counsel must be organized enough to allocate a sufficient percentage of his time to discuss the damage question such that the jury knows what it is counsel is asking for and why it is that the damage position of the plaintiff is both fair and just.

When discussing money with the jury, I would recommend that counsel always give the jury a range of suggested verdicts. If the jury is not given a range of suggested verdicts, then they have to come up with their own range and they may not pick a range that you will like. By giving a jury a range as to what would be appropriate, this gives the jury something to rationally discuss in the jury room.

As stated above, it is most important that counsel appear to be completely sincere in everything he says and does. The best way to do this is to speak from the heart and tell the jury exactly what you think. If the jury senses that counsel is speaking candidly in a forthright manner about the issues in the case, the jury is more likely to have confidence in what is being said.
If you speak from the heart, by definition, you are being yourself. If you speak from the heart, by definition, you are being sincere. If you speak from the heart, a jury will recognize that you are doing so. This can only help your client because the jury is more likely to side with the attorney who strikes them as being the most fair, the most believable and the most genuine. Make sure that this person is you by speaking from the heart.

Every good trial lawyer knows that a jury remembers best that which they both hear and see. Accordingly, demonstrative exhibits should always be used during closing argument. Sometimes demonstrative exhibits are necessary in order to emphasize a point about liability. Sometimes they are used to emphasize principles of law.
Effective demonstratives can also be used to discuss damages. A good closing argument might use demonstratives in all of these areas. In short, a well prepared demonstrative exhibit will assist counsel in making his point while at the same time assisting the jury in remembering it.
Of course, in addition to using demonstrative exhibits, actual trial exhibits should be shown to the jury just as a demonstrative exhibit would be shown. If a particular exhibit is important, the exhibit should be referred to by number and shown to the jury and its importance to the case should be discussed. An actual trial exhibit (blown up) can be used as a demonstrative exhibit in this fashion where counsel uses the exhibit to demonstrate to the jury why it is that the evidence supports his client’s contentions on any contested issue in the case.

In giving a closing argument, it is essential that counsel use the legal language of the case. The court will be instructing the jury on various principles of law that could be absolutely crucial in the jury’s determination of the facts. Thus, when discussing a case with the jury, counsel should use the language of the case. Counsel should use and explain terms such as “preponderance of the evidence,” “proximate cause,” “breach of duty,” “failure to exercise ordinary care,” “negligence,” and “damages.” If, for example, a central issue in the case is whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, that term should be used (exactly as will be charged by the Court) and explained as are other terms of art.
Many cases have unique questions of law that ultimately will control a jury verdict. It is absolutely essential that counsel use the language of the case from the beginning of the case through its end. Hopefully, the key language of the case was used in Opening Statement. Utilizing “the echo effect” during summation, counsel can use the same language of the case during summation in convincing the jury that their view of the evidence should be such that the issues are resolved favorably to the client.

As discussed above, one should not rely upon the inspiration of the moment to deliver a closing argument. A winning summation is usually the result of meticulous, painstaking preparation done well in advance of the actual delivery of the remarks. In order to insure that such preparation is not wasted, obviously, it is necessary that counsel utilize a structure in preparing his/her outline of the legal and factual issues counsel wishes to discuss with the jury.
The following elements should be present in your remarks: 1) an interesting introduction to the summation; 2) a discussion of what happened; 3) a discussion of the law and the burden of proof and why; 4) a discussion of damages; and 5) an appropriate peroration or conclusion.
In short, the closing argument should not be rambling but should be structured with a logical flow to it and with a content appropriate to the facts and legal issues involved in the case. While content many times is not as important as the actual delivery of the summation, nonetheless it is obviously important. Thus, for the content to be delivered in an effective manner, the communication style must be clear and concise and must be organized in such a manner that the jury can follow it as it is delivered. When counsel uses the “echo effect,” uses demonstrative exhibits, uses the language of the case and gives his remarks a structure, the essential elements of a winning summation are present.
1) An Interesting Introduction
With respect to the recommended structure, as indicated, counsel should initially deliver an interesting introduction to the summation. In short, the jury should hear an argument at the very beginning of the summation which captures its attention. It is recommended here that the beginning of summation mirror and/or have an “echo” effect of what hopefully was an interesting opening statement.
In a hypothetical case involving a high speed police chase, counsel for the plaintiff might give an opening statement that would read as follows:
This is a case about a police chase that should never have occurred and that resulted in the death of my client’s twenty-two (22) year old daughter, whom we contend was killed by a reckless disregard for proper police procedure by the officer involved. This case is also about the failure of the police officer and his employer, The ___________ Police Department, to acknowledge their role in this tragic loss. The evidence will show that they did have a role, a substantial role, in causing the death of this young lady and as you will hear, there will be no evidence that the victim of this tragic incident was in no way guilty of any wrongdoing herself. She was completely and totally innocent at the time of her death and lost her life partly because the police officer and his employer recklessly disregarded proper police procedures concerning the initiation and continuation of an objectively indefensible high speed pursuit.
If this kind of opening statement were given, hopefully the jury’s curiosity was piqued and their interest elevated at the very beginning of the case. Now, during summation, counsel should again describe the issue in such a manner as to get the jury’s interest and maintain it. Echo back to what was said by using the same terms, repeating the same themes. Stay on message at the beginning, but do so with impact.
2) A Discussion of What Happened and Why
After gaining the jury’s interest, counsel should then proceed to a discussion of what happened and why the defendant is liable. Here, counsel does not want to retry the entire case. Rather, counsel wants to discuss most important the facts that entitles his client to a verdict. It may be helpful to refer briefly to the pleadings and the Answer of the defendant. If you note a material fact that was denied in the Answer, this should be mentioned and then the jury should be reminded that the plaintiff has proven that the asserted fact is true.
While you should never go witness by witness in a recitation of what you proved, you should summarize the testimony and evidence offered by offering a cohesive unified theory of the case. I do not recommend that you use the term “theory of the case,” but I do recommend that you present your theory in a summarized manner tying together the most important facts and evidence supporting your claims for recovery

Continue reading

In order to communicate with sincerity, there must be a body language and eye contact that flows naturally when discussing a case with the jury. The word discussion is important because one should never read to a jury or give them a speech. It is difficult to develop a personal rapport with the jury if one is speaking at someone as opposed to talking with them. While there should be an element of formality to the summation consistent with the seriousness of the cause of action, nonetheless, the summation should be conversational in tone, as if the lawyer is having a serious discussion with the jury trying to convince them of the justness of his cause.
I recommend that the trial attorney prepare a detailed outline of his comments, not a script. If you read a speech the jury will be turned off. If you discuss the case with the jury, they will listen more attentively. When you speak to someone close to you about an important matter, you do not give them a speech, you discuss the issue with them with great earnestness and sincerity. The same is true when you make a closing argument to a jury. You do not speak at them, you talk with them.

Another fundamental of a sound closing argument is being as natural as you can be. You should never try to imitate someone else’s style or manner. You can only be yourself. The jury is always watching you very closely. Are you sincere? Are you believable? Are you trustworthy? Everything you do must communicate to the jury that you believe to the core of your being in the justness of your client’s cause. If you subliminally communicate such a belief in everything that you do in the presence of the jury, you will have a much greater chance of winning your case. J. D. Lee, a famous trial lawyer from Knoxville, Tennessee, made this observation:

“We have all seen great minds that have been wasted by not putting their knowledge into action. It is true with the trial of a lawsuit. The power of the attorney is expressed in how the attorney conducts him or herself in the courtroom. He or she is the one that brings in the big exhibits, the pictures, the drawings, moves about the courtroom with confidence and clearly shows why he or she is entitled to a verdict. This same professional advocate must display trustworthiness and integrity. The attorney does this by dress, by posture, by demeanor to court and jury and at times just by tone of voice.”

Most experts in the field believe that the manner of the delivery of a closing argument is just as important, if not more important, than the content of the summation. If a jury believes that counsel is honest and forthright and that the attorney is entirely confident in the justness of his client’s cause, the jury is more likely to side with that lawyer.

It is a very effective form of communication to stay on message and repeat consistently a unified theme. In the opening statement, a theme of the case or theory of the case should have been developed.
The trial lawyer should harken back to his opening statement during summation and use some of the same language in discussing the issues. This so-called “echo effect” is very important in driving home a point. The Republicans are masters at staying on message and repeating their message constantly and consistently to their audience.
By repeating a central theme and using the same language in doing so, one is more likely to achieve the intended results of the “echo effect,” that is, implanting in the jury’s mind the message one wishes to communicate.

What follows are excerpts from an article one of our lawyers wrote about Closing Arguments. We have previously posted Trial Techniques articles about effective cross-examination. As this article is broken ito separate parts, we will post the various subsections and suggestions in separate posts over the next several weeks. We hope this will be helpful to you if you are a practicing atorney and ,if a potential client, will give you insight into what a Trial lawyer should do to effectively represent your interests:

The most gifted Trial lawyers among us are highly successful orators. I use the term gifted because such innate ability is not common among all Trial lawyers. Those who can make a jury cry and stir their emotions with natural ease and innate ability are the few among us with this gift of oratory. These are the “show horses” of our profession. For the rest of us, we have to learn to be work horses in order to be successful at giving a winning summation. If we follow sound fundamentals, just like a football team, we can still deliver a winning summation even if we are not particularly gifted. The key is good, old fashioned, hard work. If one prepares properly and uses sound fundamentals, there is no reason one cannot be successful. What follows therefore are practical suggestions on how to go about giving a sound closing argument that is likely to yield a successful result.

A. PREPARE, PREPARE, PREPARE

In a wrongful death case, a jury will be instructed that they should return a verdict for the “full value of the life of the decedent.” This means not only any economic damages caused by a premature and wrongful death, but also “non-economic damages.” How is this calculated and how should jury be instructed to reach such an award? Interestingly enough, the jury will be instructed that they should rely upon their “enlightened conscious” in making such determinations.
If a 28-year old is killed and has a life expectancy of 46 years, as an example, one way to argue for the loss of the “intangible value” of life itself is to urge the jury to make an award based on each lost year of life. If, for example, the jury should determine that the value of life in Georgia for a 28-year old looking forward to his or her future is $100,000.00 per year, then the damages would be 46 years X $100,000.00 or $4.6 million. Is $4.6 million an adequate award for the loss of human life for an otherwise healthy 28-year old whose life is abruptly and wrongfully ended due to the negligence of a third party? Obviously, reasonable minds could differ over the sum to be awarded in such a case. Should it be $150,000/yr., $200,000/yr or some lesser sum?
Baseball players are sometimes paid 10, 20, 30 million dollars a year. Good basketball players can make hundreds of millions of dollars. Is one year of labor in the NFL worth 46 years of the value of a average man’s life? These are the kinds of debates juries have to engage in when determining “the full value of the life of the decedent.” Again, the intangible value of life itself is probably the most difficult aspect of the calculus in these cases, but nonetheless, the intangible value of life is worth far more than is the economic loss caused by a wrongful death. Yes, the wrongful death results in a loss of income and yes, the loss of income is part of the measure of damages, but the intangible value is the greater value and thus the greater difficulty for any jury.