By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Not all witnesses are saints. While this is especially well-known in the realm of criminal prosecution, it applies in civil trials as well. A witness may carry some unsavory background, or the context may simply be such that their testimony – truthful or not – feels like betrayal. The same […]
Test the Credibility of Your Turncoat Witness Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: In a new law journal article, University of Kansas law professor Melanie Wilson asks us to consider a situation in which a stranger approaches us on the street and politely asks us whether we’ve ever been a victim of sexual assault or abuse, whether we’ve ever been investigated by the
Jury Selection: Probe But Don’t Embarrass Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I can remember the first time I wrote a theme for a bench trial many years ago. The trial team used the theme, and used it as themes should be used, which is to say, emphatically and repeatedly. And it worked: The judge actually included the theme in his written
Make Your Trial Theme Cinematic…Or At Least Memorable Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: For many years, the word among intellectual property defendants has been “Don’t Mess With (the Eastern District of) Texas.” And statistics have borne that out. According to a recent analysis in the Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (Pistorino & Crane, 2012), cases in the district have come down in favor
Climb Down the “Ladder of Abstraction” in Patent Cases (And All Cases) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The case of The United States versus John Edwards has everything: politics, sex, life, and death. The former vice-presidential and presidential candidate acquired a mistress and fathered a child during the campaign, behind the back of his cancer-stricken wife, then called upon a couple of key supporters to pay vast sums of
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: For once, a social science concept that comes with an easy to understand label! “Low effort thinking” refers to a mental approach or habit that serves as a short-cut in lieu of a more systematic or careful analysis. In the spirit of full disclosure, though, the concept is sometimes dressed up
Complex Case? Beware of “Low Effort Thinkers” Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: While researching for a previous post, I was reading Professor Dru Stevenson’s (2012) article in the George Mason Law Review, and I came across a jarring sentence asserting that “modern approaches to jury selection” focus on biases relating to factors “such as race and gender.” The author then followed up
Don’t Select Your Jury Based on Demographics: A Skeptical Look at JuryQuest Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: (Used by the kind permission of Art Lien, courtartist.com) Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been fixated on the historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court focusing on the healthcare law. As I’ve reviewed the transcripts and audio recordings of the unprecedented six hours of oral argument, I’ve been struck
Practice the “Three P’s” of Oral Argument: The Example of Paul Clement Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: All eyes are on Justice Kennedy at the conclusion of last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. As a closely analyzed swing vote, the Justice’s words are scrutinized like the tea leaves of the upcoming verdict expected in June. In a well-researched piece
Aim Your Oral Argument at Your Judge’s Motivating Principle Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A lot can happen in fifty-two seconds. In last week’s historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of the President’s healthcare reform, the Justices allowed an unprecedented six hours of oral arguments. While still not appearing on television, the Court allowed the next best thing: same day
Oral Arguments: Cut In To Your Case Before You’re Cut Off By Your Judge Read More »