Successfully reported this slideshow.
ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TRIAL JONATHON K. HANCE ATTORNEY I LEARNED IN TRAFFIC COURT CPE LUNCH – June 15, 2011
TRAFFIC COURT SURVEY UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell & Gi...
FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 1 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 2 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 3 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 4 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 5 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell & Giul...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>13.  VERDICT </li></ul>B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Gi...
PRETRIAL PROCEDURE UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell & Giul...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
PRETRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS <ul><li>Defense Motion – Defective Complaint / Indictment (criminal cases only) </li></ul><ul><...
PRETRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS <ul><li>Motion to Dismiss (Federal Court) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defense motion </li></ul></ul><...
PRETRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS <ul><li>Motion for Summary Judgment (Federal & Texas Court) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Motion may be...
PRETRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS <ul><li>Motion for Continuance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be made by either party </li></ul></ul...
JURY SELECTION UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
JURY SELECTION GOALS <ul><li>Eliminate jurors who are biased or disposed against your case </li></ul><ul><li>Gather inform...
JURY SELECTION TERMINOLOGY <ul><li>“ Venire” – group of citizens from which the jury is chosen </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assem...
JURY SELECTION JURY CONSULTANTS <ul><li>In many jurisdictions, attorneys can retain a consult to assist with jury selectio...
OPENING STATEMENTS UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell & Giul...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
OPENING STATEMENTS PURPOSE <ul><li>First chance for counsel to speak to the jury about the case in detail </li></ul><ul><l...
OPENING STATEMENTS WARNINGS <ul><li>Opening statements cannot be “argumentative” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often attorneys can...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Direct examination is the heart of a case and the fulcrum of the tria...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF GOALS OF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Introduce Undisputed Facts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Undisputed ...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF GOALS OF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Lay Foundations for the Introduction of Exhibits </li></ul><...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF GOALS OF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Reflect Upon the Credibility of Witnesses </li></ul><ul><ul>...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF RULES OF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Direct witnesses must be legally competent to testify </li><...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF CROSS EXAMINATION <ul><li>Cross examination seeks to add to a case or detract from the oppositio...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF RULES OF CROSS EXAMINATION <ul><li>Leading questions are permitted </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Leading...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF REDIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Redirect examination allows counsel an opportunity to respond to th...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF REDIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Redirect examination is limited to the scope of the cross examinati...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF EXPERT TESTIMONY <ul><li>Areas of Expertise </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal Rules of Evidence Rule...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF OBJECTIONS UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF OBJECTIONS <ul><li>An objection is a request that the court rule on the admissibility of certain...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF FOUNDATIONS & EXHIBITS <ul><li>Some basis for believing evidence to be relevant and admissible m...
PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF PLAINTIFF RESTS <ul><li>The plaintiff rests when it has finished putting on all of its direct ev...
MOTIONS UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
MOTIONS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT <ul><li>At the conclusion of the plaintiff or prosecutor’s case in chief, the defens...
MOTIONS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT <ul><li>Motions for a directed verdict are seldom granted </li></ul><ul><li>Motions ...
MOTIONS MOTION FOR JMOL <ul><li>A motion for a directed verdict is known as a motion for  judgment as a matter of law  in ...
DEFENDANTS CASE, REBUTTAL, & SURREBUTTAL UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  ©...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – ...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 10 <ul><li>10 </li></ul><ul><li>The Church Mouse </li></ul><ul><li>It doesn't really matt...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 9 <ul><li>9 </li></ul><ul><li>The Gesticulating Gesturer </li></ul><ul><li>This lawyer i...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 8 <ul><li>8 </li></ul><ul><li>The Professor </li></ul><ul><li>Save your lectures for the...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 7 <ul><li>7 </li></ul><ul><li>The Pesky Questioner </li></ul><ul><li>The Judge asks the ...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 6 <ul><li>6 </li></ul><ul><li>The Righteous One </li></ul><ul><li>Don't be a lawyer who ...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 5 <ul><li>5 </li></ul><ul><li>The Thespian </li></ul><ul><li>Save the flourishes, bells,...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 4 <ul><li>4 </li></ul><ul><li>The Unprepared Pettifogger </li></ul><ul><li>A pettifogger...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 3 <ul><li>3 </li></ul><ul><li>The Stonewall Jackson </li></ul><ul><li>Don't stonewall fo...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 2 <ul><li>2 </li></ul><ul><li>The Respectful Disrespecter  </li></ul><ul><li>Use the phr...
TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS  NO. 1 <ul><li>1 </li></ul><ul><li>The Artful Dodger  </li></ul><ul><li>Answer the questions ...
CLOSING ARGUMENT UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell & Giulia...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
CLOSING ARGUMENT TELLING A STORY <ul><li>The final argument is counsel’s only opportunity to tell the entire story of the ...
CLOSING ARGUMENT CLOSING ARGUMENTS MUST: <ul><li>Be logical </li></ul><ul><li>Be believable </li></ul><ul><li>Be legally s...
CLOSING ARGUMENT CLOSING ARGUMENTS CANNOT: <ul><li>Assert personal belief </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attorneys cannot assert pe...
JURY CHARGE AND DELIBERATION UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracew...
ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Sta...
THE VERDICT UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
SUMMARY B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 20...
SUMMARY TRIAL IN A NUTSHELL <ul><li>The opening statement paints a picture that the jury begins to accept and internalize ...
SUMMARY RESOURCES UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  <ul><ul><li>Steven Luber...
SUMMARY RESOURCES UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
SUMMARY RESOURCES <ul><li>Dictionaries & Thesauruses : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed. 20...
SUMMARY RESOURCES UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
SUMMARY RESOURCES <ul><li>Style Books : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bryan A. Garner,  Garner's Modern American Usage  (3d ed. 20...
QUESTIONS B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, ...
ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TRIAL I LEARNED IN TRAFFIC COURT <ul><li>Jonathon K. Hance </li></ul><ul><li>Bracewell & G...
B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  © 2009 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP  CONFIDENTIAL:  ATTO...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

All I Really Need to Know About Trial I Learned in Traffic Court

1,000 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

All I Really Need to Know About Trial I Learned in Traffic Court

  1. 1. ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TRIAL JONATHON K. HANCE ATTORNEY I LEARNED IN TRAFFIC COURT CPE LUNCH – June 15, 2011
  2. 2. TRAFFIC COURT SURVEY UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  3. 3. FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 1 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  4. 4. FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 2 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  5. 5. FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 3 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  6. 6. FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 4 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  7. 7. FIFTH CIRCUIT POP QUIZ QUESTION 5 UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  8. 8. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  9. 9. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  10. 10. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>13. VERDICT </li></ul>B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  11. 11. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  12. 12. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  13. 13. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS <ul><li>Defense Motion – Defective Complaint / Indictment (criminal cases only) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Charging instrument cannot be defective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defendant’s name must be correct (minor variations excepted) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Charge must be supported by underlying law </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Defective complaint can also become an evidentiary issue for the prosecution </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Plea (criminal cases only) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not Guilty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guilty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defendant must be advised of rights before a judge will accept a guilty plea </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Judge must ensure that plea is knowing and voluntary </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defendant typically agrees to plead guilty when accepting a “plea deal” from a prosecutor </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nolo Contendere ( i.e. , a “no contest” plea) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In Texas, a nolo contendere plea has the same effect as a guilty plea </li></ul></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  14. 14. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS <ul><li>Motion to Dismiss (Federal Court) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defense motion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Even if all the facts in the complaint are true, plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Court must accept the pleaded facts as true and make every reasonable inference in favor of the plaintiff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Filed prior to answering the complaint and before discovery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May be used to challenge jurisdiction, venue, service of process, or substantive merit of the complaint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disfavored and rarely granted </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Special Exceptions (Texas State Court) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defense motion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Points out defects in a plaintiff’s complaint with specificity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action, special exceptions in Texas can mirror the Federal Court motion to dismiss </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  15. 15. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS <ul><li>Motion for Summary Judgment (Federal & Texas Court) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Motion may be made by either party </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asks the court to determine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(1) whether there are any issues of material fact requiring a trial for their resolution and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(2) whether one party is entitled to judgment when the law is applied to the undisputed facts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Filed after parties have had an opportunity for discovery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Party challenging a motion for summary judgment must provide summary judgment evidence (possibly obtained through discovery) to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for disposition at trial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be used to dispose of an entire case or just specific issues </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  16. 16. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS <ul><li>Motion for Continuance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be made by either party </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asks court to delay the start of trial to a later date </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be a good reason (typically unknown at the time trial was scheduled) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Motions for change of venue </li></ul><ul><li>Motions objecting to evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Also known as motions in limine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In criminal cases, the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment applies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence collected in violation of a defendant’s rights is sometimes inadmissible </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Motion for appointment of interpreter </li></ul><ul><li>Motion invoking “the rule” </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  17. 17. JURY SELECTION UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  18. 18. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  19. 19. JURY SELECTION GOALS <ul><li>Eliminate jurors who are biased or disposed against your case </li></ul><ul><li>Gather information about the eventual jurors in order to present your case most effectively </li></ul><ul><li>Begin to introduce yourself, your client, and certain key concepts to the jury </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  20. 20. JURY SELECTION TERMINOLOGY <ul><li>“ Venire” – group of citizens from which the jury is chosen </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assembled from list of registered voters and licensed drivers in the court’s jurisdiction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Voir Dire ” – process of questioning venire members, by either the court or the attorneys (or both) in order to select those who will serve on the jury </li></ul><ul><li>“ Challenge for Cause” – an objection to a venire member’s qualifications to sit on the jury either </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Member does not meet certain statutory requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Member has revealed a significant bias or prejudice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be ruled on by court, and can be objected to by opposing counsel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No limit to the number of challenges for cause </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Preemptory Challenge” – challenge that can be exercised without cause </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Also kn ow n as a strike </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must not be racially based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of strikes is determined by statute or court rule </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  21. 21. JURY SELECTION JURY CONSULTANTS <ul><li>In many jurisdictions, attorneys can retain a consult to assist with jury selection </li></ul><ul><li>Consultants are often professional psychologists who will sit at the counsel table during voir dire in order to assess the venire members’ responses and body language </li></ul><ul><li>In high-profile trials, jury consultants often assemble “shadow juries” or focus groups for pretrial preparation so that various arguments can be tried out on demographically representative samples </li></ul><ul><li>Typically used only in big-budget cases </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  22. 22. OPENING STATEMENTS UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  23. 23. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  24. 24. OPENING STATEMENTS PURPOSE <ul><li>First chance for counsel to speak to the jury about the case in detail </li></ul><ul><li>Provides a roadmap for the jury </li></ul><ul><li>Often vivid and dramatic </li></ul><ul><li>Attorneys typically conclude opening statements with a reminder that at the conclusion of the evidence, they will return to summarize the case and ask that the jury find in their client’s favor </li></ul><ul><li>Typically plaintiff (civil) or prosecution (criminal) gives the first opening statement and the defendant goes second </li></ul><ul><li>Defendants have the option of delaying their opening statement until after the close of the plaintiff or prosecution’s case in chief </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  25. 25. OPENING STATEMENTS WARNINGS <ul><li>Opening statements cannot be “argumentative” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often attorneys can avoid objections for being “argumentative” by prefacing language with the phrase, “as we will show you” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Opening statements cannot suggest inferences that fact finders should draw from the evidence </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  26. 26. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  27. 27. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  28. 28. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Direct examination is the heart of a case and the fulcrum of the trial </li></ul><ul><li>Every other aspect of the trial is derivative of direct examination </li></ul><ul><li>Direct examination is an opportunity to present the substance of the case, offer evidence to prove the facts that must prevail in order to win the trial </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  29. 29. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF GOALS OF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Introduce Undisputed Facts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Undisputed facts may be necessary to establish an element of the case </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Failing to include undisputed facts may result in a directed verdict, an unfavorable jury verdict, or reversal on appeal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Enhance the Likelihood of Disputed Facts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each side puts forth its version of the disputed facts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disputed facts should be introduced in a persuasive manner </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attempt to establish the certainty of facts that the other side claims are uncertain or untrue </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  30. 30. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF GOALS OF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Lay Foundations for the Introduction of Exhibits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Documents, photographs, writings, tangible objects, and other forms of real evidence will often be central to a case </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In most cases, a witness will need to lay a foundation for the evidence to overcome a challenge to the reliability of the evidence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A records custodian at a hospital, for example, might be called to qualify a particular document as a business record, even if they know nothing about the content of the document </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  31. 31. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF GOALS OF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Reflect Upon the Credibility of Witnesses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The credibility of a witness is always an issue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most direct examinations include questions about the witness’s background, occupation, education, and other information that helps qualify and humanize the witness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Credibility of a witness will be attached on cross examination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Witness may also be called on direct to testify adversely on the credibility of another witness ( i.e. , testimony of negative character or reputation) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hold the Attention of the Trier of Fact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Counsel should avoid the temptation to drift into boredom and routine </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  32. 32. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF RULES OF DIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Direct witnesses must be legally competent to testify </li></ul><ul><li>Counsel must ask non-leading questions </li></ul><ul><li>Witnesses must avoid narrative testimony </li></ul><ul><li>Witnesses, other than qualified experts, are not allowed to offer opinions or characterize events or testimony outside of their own personal knowledge or sensory perception </li></ul><ul><li>Counsel may “refresh” the recollection of witnesses – witnesses are not expected to have perfect recall </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  33. 33. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF CROSS EXAMINATION <ul><li>Cross examination seeks to add to a case or detract from the opposition’s case by extracting information from the other side’s witnesses </li></ul><ul><li>Cross examinations are often perceived as a contest between the lawyer and the witness </li></ul><ul><li>Cross examination is inherently risky </li></ul><ul><li>Brevity is an excellent discipline for cross examination </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  34. 34. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF RULES OF CROSS EXAMINATION <ul><li>Leading questions are permitted </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Leading questions are those that contain an answer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Isn’t it true that you were at the restaurant at 8:00 pm the night of the murder?” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most courts allow counsel to insist on an answer on cross examination </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scope of cross examination is limited </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross examination is limited to the scope of direct examination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Currently, there is a trend in courts toward a more expansive view of the scope of cross examination </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Counsel must avoid argumentative questions, intimidating behavior, unfair characterization, assuming facts not in evidence </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  35. 35. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF REDIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Redirect examination allows counsel an opportunity to respond to the cross examination </li></ul><ul><li>Counsel may ask a witness to explain subjects that were explored in cross examination, to correct errors or misstatements, or rebut new charges or inferences </li></ul><ul><li>Redirect is the time to ask those questions that the cross examiner purposefully left out </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  36. 36. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF REDIRECT EXAMINATION <ul><li>Redirect examination is limited to the scope of the cross examination—redirect must always have some reasonable relationship to cross examination </li></ul><ul><li>The rules of direct examination apply ( e.g. , no leading questions, no narrative answers, testimony must come from personal knowledge, lay opinions are limited to sensory perceptions, and proper foundation must be laid to refresh a witness’s recollection) </li></ul><ul><li>Direct examination may be followed by recross examination </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  37. 37. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF EXPERT TESTIMONY <ul><li>Areas of Expertise </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 – expert opinions may be admissible where the expert’s “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scope of Opinion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An expert’s opinion may embrace an ultimate issue to be decided by the fact finder </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In criminal cases, however, an expert may not testify as to the defendant’s state of mind when it is an element of the crime </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bases for Opinion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An expert’s opinion need not be preceded by an explanation of the underlying data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The underlying data need not be admissible so long as it is the type reasonably relied upon by the experts in the field </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  38. 38. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF OBJECTIONS UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  39. 39. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF OBJECTIONS <ul><li>An objection is a request that the court rule on the admissibility of certain evidence or testimony </li></ul><ul><li>Motions in limine often are used prior to trial to prevent evidence that is so damaging that even mention of it could prejudice the jury </li></ul><ul><li>Objections preserve the error on the record for appeal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal (called the “waiver rule”) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Common objections: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Relevance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hearsay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of foundation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unfair prejudice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of personal knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authenticity of evidence </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  40. 40. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF FOUNDATIONS & EXHIBITS <ul><li>Some basis for believing evidence to be relevant and admissible must be laid before any evidence can be considered at trial. </li></ul><ul><li>Foundation for evidence may be complex or simplistic </li></ul><ul><li>To be considered by the trier of fact, evidence must be: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Relevant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relevant evidence makes some fact at issue in the case either more or less likely </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authentic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Testimony and exhibits must be what the proponent claims they them to be </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Admissible under the applicable rules of evidence </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  41. 41. PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF PLAINTIFF RESTS <ul><li>The plaintiff rests when it has finished putting on all of its direct evidence </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  42. 42. MOTIONS UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  43. 43. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  44. 44. MOTIONS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT <ul><li>At the conclusion of the plaintiff or prosecutor’s case in chief, the defense can make a motion for a directed verdict </li></ul><ul><li>A judge grants a motion for a directed verdict if the judge finds that no reasonable juror could reach a contrary decision </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This often happens when the plaintiff (or prosecution) has not introduced sufficient evidence to prove its case in chief by the applicable legal standard </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In civil cases, the plaintiff typically has to prove all the elements of its cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Some elements of civil cases require proof by a heightened standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence) </li></ul><ul><li>In a criminal case, a prosecutor has to prove all the elements of its complaint beyond a reasonable doubt </li></ul><ul><li>In criminal cases, the prosecution cannot move for a directed verdict </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  45. 45. MOTIONS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT <ul><li>Motions for a directed verdict are seldom granted </li></ul><ul><li>Motions for a directed verdict must be made to preserve error for appeal </li></ul><ul><li>The judge may grant a motion for a directed verdict as to the entire case or only as to certain elements of the case </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  46. 46. MOTIONS MOTION FOR JMOL <ul><li>A motion for a directed verdict is known as a motion for judgment as a matter of law in federal court </li></ul><ul><li>Judgments as a matter of law are governed under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(A) resolve the issue against the party; and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.” </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  47. 47. DEFENDANTS CASE, REBUTTAL, & SURREBUTTAL UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  48. 48. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  49. 49. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  50. 50. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 10 <ul><li>10 </li></ul><ul><li>The Church Mouse </li></ul><ul><li>It doesn't really matter how good your argument is if the court can't hear you! </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  51. 51. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 9 <ul><li>9 </li></ul><ul><li>The Gesticulating Gesturer </li></ul><ul><li>This lawyer is a distraction to the court. Use words instead. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  52. 52. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 8 <ul><li>8 </li></ul><ul><li>The Professor </li></ul><ul><li>Save your lectures for the classroom, and keep your opinions to yourself. Make your statements clearly and forcefully, but respect the intelligence of the court. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  53. 53. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 7 <ul><li>7 </li></ul><ul><li>The Pesky Questioner </li></ul><ul><li>The Judge asks the questions. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  54. 54. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 6 <ul><li>6 </li></ul><ul><li>The Righteous One </li></ul><ul><li>Don't be a lawyer who is overly righteous in his/her indignation. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  55. 55. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 5 <ul><li>5 </li></ul><ul><li>The Thespian </li></ul><ul><li>Save the flourishes, bells, and whistles for Night Court. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  56. 56. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 4 <ul><li>4 </li></ul><ul><li>The Unprepared Pettifogger </li></ul><ul><li>A pettifogger is an attorney who is often unscrupulous or resorts to trickery. Smoke and mirrors will not substitute for diligent preparation. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  57. 57. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 3 <ul><li>3 </li></ul><ul><li>The Stonewall Jackson </li></ul><ul><li>Don't stonewall for the sake of stonewalling. Concessions often help. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  58. 58. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 2 <ul><li>2 </li></ul><ul><li>The Respectful Disrespecter </li></ul><ul><li>Use the phrase &quot;with all due respect&quot; sparingly, if at all. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  59. 59. TOP 10 WORST TRIAL ATTORNEYS NO. 1 <ul><li>1 </li></ul><ul><li>The Artful Dodger </li></ul><ul><li>Answer the questions asked. No exceptions. </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  60. 60. CLOSING ARGUMENT UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  61. 61. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  62. 62. CLOSING ARGUMENT TELLING A STORY <ul><li>The final argument is counsel’s only opportunity to tell the entire story of the case without any interruption </li></ul><ul><li>Delivered in counsel’s own words, not through the mouths of witnesses </li></ul><ul><li>Not bound by the same strict rules of proper and improper content as opening statements </li></ul><ul><li>Final argument is a moment of pure advocacy </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  63. 63. CLOSING ARGUMENT CLOSING ARGUMENTS MUST: <ul><li>Be logical </li></ul><ul><li>Be believable </li></ul><ul><li>Be legally sufficient </li></ul><ul><li>Tell a persuasive story </li></ul><ul><li>Tie up cross examinations </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss damages </li></ul><ul><li>Use jury instructions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  64. 64. CLOSING ARGUMENT CLOSING ARGUMENTS CANNOT: <ul><li>Assert personal belief </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attorneys cannot assert personal knowledge of facts in issue and cannot state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of the civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Appeal to prejudice or bigotry </li></ul><ul><li>Misstate the evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Misstate the law </li></ul><ul><li>Misuse the evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Appeal to the jurors’ personal interests </li></ul><ul><li>Comment on privilege </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  65. 65. JURY CHARGE AND DELIBERATION UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  66. 66. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL TRIAL OUTLINE <ul><li>Pretrial Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Jury Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Opening Statements </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff Rests </li></ul><ul><li>Motions </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><li>Defendant’s Case in Chief </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff’s Case in Rebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant’s Surrebuttal </li></ul><ul><li>Closing Argument </li></ul><ul><li>Judge’s Charge to the Jury </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul>
  67. 67. THE VERDICT UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  68. 68. SUMMARY B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  69. 69. SUMMARY TRIAL IN A NUTSHELL <ul><li>The opening statement paints a picture that the jury begins to accept and internalize </li></ul><ul><li>The witnesses, documents, and exhibits fit neatly into that picture and reinforce the image created by the opening statement </li></ul><ul><li>The final argument solidifies the image </li></ul><ul><li>The verdict confirms the image </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  70. 70. SUMMARY RESOURCES UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP <ul><ul><li>Steven Lubert, Modern Trial Advocacy (2d ed. 2004). </li></ul></ul>
  71. 71. SUMMARY RESOURCES UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  72. 72. SUMMARY RESOURCES <ul><li>Dictionaries & Thesauruses : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed. 2007). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New Oxford American Dictionary (3d ed. 2010). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2006). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Webster's Third New International Dictionary (3d ed. 2002). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus (2d ed. 2008). </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  73. 73. SUMMARY RESOURCES UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  74. 74. SUMMARY RESOURCES <ul><li>Style Books : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage (3d ed. 2009). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed. 2010). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>William Strunk and E.B. White, The Elements of Style (4th ed. 2000). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Texas Law Review, Manual on Usage and Style (11th ed. 2008). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>H. Ramsey Fowler, Little, Brown Handbook (11th ed. 2009). </li></ul></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  75. 75. QUESTIONS B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  76. 76. ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TRIAL I LEARNED IN TRAFFIC COURT <ul><li>Jonathon K. Hance </li></ul><ul><li>Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP </li></ul><ul><li>711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 </li></ul><ul><li>Houston, Texas 77002-2770 </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>www.bgllp.com/hance </li></ul><ul><li>Phone: 713-221-1125 </li></ul><ul><li>Fax: 800-404-3970 </li></ul>UHY Advisors, CPE Presentation – June 15, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  77. 77. B&G IP MONTHLY LUNCH – MARCH 8, 2011 © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP © 2009 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE INFORMATION ©2009 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

×