Articles

When people think about trial lawyers, they often picture powerful closing arguments, dramatic cross-examinations, and persuasive courtroom performances.

Those moments certainly matter. They are often the most visible parts of a trial.

But many experienced litigators will tell you that the true difference between an average trial lawyer and an exceptional one lies in a much quieter skill.

The ability to think strategically about the case long before the jury ever enters the courtroom.

Trial ...

Reasonable doubt is rarely created by a single fact.
It’s created by gaps.

Jurors don’t struggle with evidence they understand. They struggle with evidence they cannot place. When events feel disordered, jurors fill in the blanks themselves, and that is where doubt lives.

A well-built timeline does not just organise facts. It removes the space where doubt grows.

Reasonable Doubt Thrives in Disorganisation

Most lawyers treat timelines as neutral tools. Something to orient the jury. Something ...

It's not the trial of the century. I'm not even sure if it's the trial of the month. But the current Deer Valley whodunnit (aka Sanderson v. Paltrow) has had so many head scratching moments that it's worth a closer look. To be sure, watching a trial from the couch is like watching baseball from the couch: it looks easy. The further we are from the action, the better we think we would be. A 2-0 fastball down the middle? No problem (forgetting the fact that it’s 100 miles per hour). Trying a case ...

Great trial lawyers have not simply mastered the rules of evidence. Great trial lawyers understand human nature. While expertise in evidence is necessary to execute the mechanics of a trial, understanding people is necessary to persuade. Failing to appreciate the human element of trials results in bad advice and bad advocacy. 

Take, for example, the burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Plaintiffs in civil trials have a lesser burde...