Trial Lawyer Resource Center

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The more cases I try and the more I read about trial strategy techniques and tactics, the more I realize trying cases is an art and not a science.  Because two smart effective trial lawyers can take very different approaches in trying a case. 

From the time I was sitting in trial advocacy in law school, I have always heard and applied the theory of taking the sting out of your client's cross examination by introducing in direct testimony harmful facts that you knew were going to come up in cross examination.  The theory is that exposing the flaws in your own case scores credibility points with the jury and that you can frame your weaknessess better by getting out your own version of the story first. In their book Sponsorship Strategy: Evidentiary Tactics for Winning Jury Trials, Robert Klonoff and Paul Colby disagree. Their premise is that contrary to conventional wisdom, lawyers should not bring out the weaknesses in their own cases but instead elicit only favorable evidence for their case. Their theory is that you actually lose credibility by bring up your own weaknesses and that the cross examining lawyer often looks petty and nitpicking by bring up much of what you felt compelled to get out the sting of in your direct.

I disagree. But I think the theory is interesting, particularly as it applies to monies paid to expert witnesses.   I think it is helpful to read theories about trial tactics with which you disagree as well as those things you might apply because it gets you thinking creatively about what you are doing as a lawyer when you are trying a case. This process makes you a better lawyer.

Sample direct examination outlines and sample direct testimony questions and other sample trial materials are available at the Personal Injury Help Center which has outlines and sample direct examinations of personal injury plaintiffs and expert witnesses.