HOW WE TRY CASES

We try a very lean and highly manicured case. We put on the evidence we need, and that means leaving out lots of things we have learned but are not essential. Extraneous information is at best a distraction and at worst a false signal of our theory.

Our witness examinations, both direct and cross examinations, are highly scripted. Our trial preparation employs the chapter method of witness examination. Each creates a picture in the minds of the jurors. We call it the take-away. The chapters are built around facts we have obtained in discovery. As a result, we can tell you what we expect to prove with each witness.

We believe our opening statement methodology is critical to winning your case. Our opening statements are built around two aspects: They are theory–driven and factually intensive. The fact finders need to know what we say happened and what facts we believe are important. We cannot afford to wait until closing argument nor can we keep our theory a secret in hopes of confusing the opponent. We must equip the fact finders to appreciate the significance of our best facts at the time they first hear them. This technique leads to the formation of beliefs long before deliberations begin. And we must discuss our best facts in detail in our opening statement. A promise of facts to come persuades no one. Our best facts begin to score when we compile them for the jurors in an opening statement. Jurors know our theory and they know the facts that back it up. By the way: we always prosecute, we never defend. No matter whether we are plaintiff or defense counsel, we sponsor our theory and we prosecute the other side. In other words, our theory of the case is never “the opponent cannot prove their theory.”

We believe in the power of visual persuasion. We value demonstrative aids so highly that we have our own in-house trial graphics department. In–house meaning in our offices where we can talk and draft and refine as necessary. Good demonstrative aids take time. We use demonstrative aids in opening statement, in direct and cross examinations, and we bring them back in closing argument. In fact, we use demonstrative aids in pretrial settings including discovery disputes, motions practices, you name it.

We can employ the chapter method of trial preparation because we used the chapter method of discovery. Trial is not an approved discovery devise. We need to go into court with more than a plan. We need the facts to back up our theory. We gather these facts through a tight goal-directed discovery process. We are not looking to know everything about everything we are looking to flesh out our chosen theory of the case. To accomplish this factual domination, our document requests are targeted. And our depositions read more like trial cross examinations than like unfocused who what where and when questioning. We are there to gain admissions and the facts we nail down in depositions ground our trial plan and allow us to candidly assess the strength and weakness of your case. We will not take you into a trial based on hope of facts to come.