By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm In the wake of November 2nd’s Congressional Mid-Term elections, and another change in the party in charge at the House — widely read as a referendum on President Obama — the focus of punditry has turned to the question of whether the President “get’s it,” or not. As President Obama, again, […]
Make Sure Jurors Understand That You “Get It” Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm From “To Kill A Mockingbird,” all the way to “My Cousin Vinnie,” the world of cinema is filled with great trial stories. In virtually all of them, the heart of the drama is played out in a courtroom, in front of a jury, through powerful openings, closings, and witness examinations.
Take a Discovery Lesson From ‘The Social Network’ Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm In the recently concluded trial against former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, the jurors came to refer to it as “The Bible,” based both on its power and on its frequently obscure meaning. In this case, the “it” being 105 pages of fairly complex instructions coming at the end of a thirty-nine
Address Your Jury’s Inevitable Difficulty With The Instructions Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm The common wisdom is that closing argument it the time to, well, present arguments. However, a sensitivity to your audience and to what jurors are trying to do during your closing argument, suggests that straightforward argument may not be the best way to help jurors feel like they’re 1.) coming
Remember That Argument Isn’t The Most Important Part of Closing Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm At the close of the corruption trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich for, among other things, trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder, the defense surprised many by putting on no witnesses and by reneging on an earlier promise that Mr. Blagojevich would testify
Keep Your Burden of Proof in Your Back Pocket Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm If it isn’t already a saying, then I’ll try to make it one: When a case gets as far as trial, it is because one side or the other is seriously misunderstanding their chances for success. When both parties are realistic about their chances, then there is really no reason
Be More Realistic Than Your Opponent Read More »
by Dr. Ken Broda Bahm As counsel begins her oral argument to the judge, everything is going according to plan. She systematically previews her main points and begins developing the first of several layered arguments. Then… the judge interrupts with a question. Then another question. Then a counter-argument. Before she knows it, counsel is off-track
When Faced With A “Hot Bench,” Keep Your Cool Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm When you have the ability to ask your own questions in voir dire, make the most of them. Done well, attorney-conducted voir dire should create a balance between the goals of spotlighting high risk jurors and safely drawing themes from more favorable jurors. At the same time, the questioning process
In Voir Dire, Improvise with Structure Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm So the company finally terminates the troublesome employee. “Problem solved,” right? In a litigious climate, the answer could be, “Wrong, the problem’s been replaced by a different problem” because what follows could be months or years of discovery, deposition, and developing strategy before you find yourself explaining that decision to
In Employment Cases (and All Cases), Keeping it Simple is Smart Read More »
by: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm Sigmund Freud is credited with having said that “analogies prove nothing, but they make us feel right at home.” Among litigators, there are two schools of thought on whether to deploy analogies in the course of legal persuasion. One side argues that the explanatory staying-power of an analogy makes it
Stop Searching for the Perfect Analogy (but Don’t Surrender a Communication Lifesaver) Read More »