Advocacy Survey - Chapter 6, Trial Advocacy (Draft)

Chapter  6:    Trial  Advocacy   Perspectives   “In   the   current   highly   competitive   environment,   a   law   school   graduate   needs   every   advantage   to   distinguish   himself   in   the   legal   community.    Trial   advocacy   gives   you   the   competence   and   the   confidence   to   step   into   a   courtroom   from   day   one   of   your   career.     Whether   you   become   a   trial   lawyer   or   practice   in   any   other   field,   trial   advocacy   teaches   you   the   skills   and   the   ability   to   persuade   essential   to   representing   your  clients  effectively.”   The   ability   to   present   yourself,   your   client   and   your   position   with   strength   and   confidence   is   an   absolute   requirement   no   matter   what   position   you   pursue   after   graduation.   The   transactional   attorney,   the   trial   attorney   and   the   dispute   resolution   specialist   are   all   tasked   with   mastering   the   art   of   persuasion.   The   trial   advocacy   course   provides   the   foundation   for   learning   and   mastering   the   skills   required   for   effective   and   ethical   advocacy   that   is   at   the   core   of   our   justice   system.     Your   proficiency   in   the   skills   acquired   in   trial   advocacy   will   set   you   apart   from   other   professionals  and  attorneys  in  the  workplace  at  a  time  when  in-­‐person  communication   is  at  a  premium.    The   courtroom   is   a   theatre   where   the   stories   of   the   litigants’   lives   are   played   out   before   judges   or   jurors   who,   themselves,   become   part   of   the   play.   It   is   a   place   where   warriors  wage  fierce  war  using  intellect  and  storytelling  as  their  weapons.  It  is  a  place   where  the  morality  and  meaning  of  human  conduct  is  judged.  It  is  a  place  where  the   rules  of  right  and  wrong  in  our  society  are  affirmed.  It  is  a  place  where  the  souls  and   aspirations   of   both   the   judged   and   the   judges   are   examined   closely.   It   is   a   place   of   honor.   Whether   you   represent   clients   in   the   courtroom   or   the   boardroom,   effective   oral   advocacy   is   essential.   Trial   advocacy   programs   hone   these   skills   and   give   you   the   tools   to   confidently   assess   and   respond   to   challenges   so   that   you   can   successfully   achieve   your  client’s  goals.   Trial  Advocacy  -­‐  Overview   The   art   of   advocacy   is   on   full   display   during   a   trial.     What   makes   trial   advocacy   different   other   aspects   of   advocacy   is   the   number   of   audiences   that   an   advocate   encounters  during  the  trial  process.    This  is  especially  true  during  a  jury  trial.    Those   audiences  include  the  judge,  the  jury,  the  opposing  counsel,  the  witnesses,  and  the   advocate’s  client.    For  each  of  those  audiences,  a  different  skill  is  required.       Trial   advocacy   unfortunately   suffers   from   being   the   most   public   form   of   advocacy.     The   academic   world   writes   about   it.1  The   news   media   covers   it.2     The   entertainment  world  embraces  it  as  full-­‐fledged  entertainment.3     The  public  nature   of   trial   advocacy   creates   numerous   expectations   among   its   respective   audiences.   The  external  expectations  create  a  subtle,  and  sometimes  not-­‐so-­‐subtle,  pressure  on   the  advocate.  Judges  expect  advocates  to  be  articulate  and  legally  grounded.    Juries   expect  advocates  to  be  competent  and  skilled,  and  to  a  certain  degree  –  entertaining.     Opposing  counsels  expect  advocates  to  be  forceful  and  contrarian.    Witnesses  expect   the   advocate   to   be   both   a   guide   (on   direct   examination)   and   a   warrior   (on   cross   examination).       The   clients   expect   the   advocate   to   carry   the   banner   for   their   case,   using   the   advocate’s   complete   skill-­‐set   to   achieve   victory.       Without   a   doubt,   this   set   of  expectations  creates  performance  pressure  at  one  of  its  highest  levels.   The   advocate   must   deal   with   the   pressure   and   expectation   through   understanding   and   awareness.     The   understanding   and   awareness   begins   with   the   advocate  knowing  the  expectations  exist  in  the  first  place.    This  knowledge,  or  lack   thereof,   is   generally   overlooked   in   trial   advocacy   literature.4       Because   external   expectations  are  not  addressed  in  the  literature,  the  student  advocate  is  left  to  learn   trial   advocacy   techniques   under   the   influence   of   his/her   own   deep   structure   –   or   said   another   way,   his/her   internal   expectations.     Unfortunately,   internal   expectations   are   not   addressed   in   trial   advocacy   literature   either. 5     Student   advocates  are  then  left  with  learning  trial  techniques  in  an  a-­‐contextual  vacuum.       Stages  of  a  Trial    Trials  follow  a  basic  linear  path.     A  very  clinical  separation  creates  the  steps   along   the   path.     Teaching   purposes   dictate   the   need   for   this   separation.     However,   it   is   important   to   remember   that   a   trial   is   bigger   than   the   sum   of   its   parts   and   in   practice,  cannot  be  separated  into  distinct  parts.   Stages  of  a  Trial   1. Voir  Dire 2. Opening  Statements 3. Case  for  Plaintiff/Prosecution a. Direct  Examination b. Cross  Examination c. Experts 4. Case  for  Defendant a. Direct  Examination b. Cross  Examination c. Experts 5. Closing  Arguments Civil   trials   and   criminal   trials   have   basic   foundational   differences.     The   differences   are   important   because   of   the   external   and   internal   expectations   they   create.    The  chart6  below  illustrates  those  differences.       Civil   Criminal   Parties   Individuals  or  groups   Government  and  an  alleged   criminal     At  issue   Court  must  determine  whether   one  party  has  caused  harm  to   another  party;  case  deals  with   rights  and  duties  between   individuals     Court  must  determine  whether   one  party  has  violated  a  statute   that  prohibits  some  type  of   activity   Type  of     Harm  to  private  person  or   Wrongdoing   group   Transgression  against  society   Penalty   or   Remedy   Compensation  for  damages  or   loss   Punishment  (fine,   imprisonment,  rehabilitation,   etc.)   Burden   of   Proof   Preponderance  of  the  evidence   Guilt  beyond  a  reasonable   doubt   The   five   stages   of   a   trial   transcend   any   differences   between   the   civil   and   criminal   trial   process   –   and   the   stages   are   applicable   to   both   the   plaintiff’s   presentation  and  the  defendant’s  presentation.   1. Voir   Dire.      Jury  selection  is  both  an  art  and  a  science.    The “art”  of  voir  dire  is  engaging  the  jury  panel  in  a  meaningful discussion   that   allows   for   selection   of   the   best   possible jurors   for   the   case.     The   science   of   voir   dire   includes understanding   how   the   matrix   of   group   decision-­‐making, voir  dire  responses,  and  the  issues  in  the  case  all  intersect  to impact  the  selection  process. To  a  certain  extent,  voir  dire  is  the  least  proscribed  facet   of  the  trial  advocacy  skill  set.      That  may  be  due  to  a  certain   “each  to  his  own”  philosophy  about  voir  dire.    Less  is  written   about  the  techniques  to  be  used  in  voir  dire  than  is  written   about   the   strategy   of   voir   dire. 7     This   treatment   is   not   incorrect   but   does   little   to   prepare   a   lawyer   to   conduct   an   effective  voir  dire.       The   “art”   of   voir,   engaging   the   jury   panel,   is   best   accomplished  through  creating  an  atmosphere  of  exchange  –   where  the  panel  feels  invited  to  share  opinions  and  thoughts   on  the  topic  presented.    This  atmosphere  is  created  through   rapport-­‐building   and   through   the   use   of   open-­‐ended   questions.    To  build  rapport,  an  advocate  has  to  be  authentic   and   articulate.     The   use   of   open-­‐ended   questions   is   discussed   at   length   in   the   section   below   on   direct   examination.     One   psychological   barrier   to   effective   voir   dire   that   an   advocate   needs   to   be   aware   of   is   the   mindset   of   the   typical   juror.    For  the  most  part,  panel  members  do  not  want  to  be   there  and  do  not  want  to  be  selected  for  jury  service.      These   panel  member  attitudes  can  create  a  “false  negative”  and  the   advocate  should  consider  this  when  preparing  for  voir  dire.         2. Opening   Statement.     The   main   purpose   of   opening statement  is  to  tell  the  decision-­‐maker  (judge  or  jury)  your story  of  the  case.    The  story  aspect  is  important  in  opening statement  because  a  straight,  chronological  recitation  of  the facts   is   neither   persuasive   nor   engaging.     To   be   persuasive and   engaging,   an   advocate   must   create   the   Persuasion Triangle  (Figure  1). Decision-­‐Maker   Advocate   Client’s  Story   Figure  1.    The  Persuasion  Triangle   This   simplistic   diagram   illustrates   how   the   advocate   uses   story  in  opening  statement.    In  Chapter  1,  the  impact  of  the   elements  of  storytelling  was  discussed.    The  impact  of  using   story   in   opening   statement   is   creating   a   deep   structure   connection   between   the   decision-­‐maker   and   the   client’s   story.    The  advocate  must  make  that  connection  and  in  doing   so,  creates  the  Persuasion  Triangle.   Opening  statements  should  be  tailored  to  the  audience.   An  opening  statement  presented  to  a  judge  will  be  different   than  an  opening  statement  delivered  to  a  jury.    “Know  your   audience”  is  a  popular  and  important  adage  in  presentation   instruction.    However,  preparing  an  opening  for  a  judge  can   present   a   potential   trap   for   the   advocate.     The   trap   is   discounting   the   effectiveness   of   persuasion   techniques   because   the   judge   uses   a   “legal   filter”   to   decide   the   case.     While  the  “legal  filter”  is  admittedly  a  significant  part  of  how   a   judge   encounters   a   case,   the   judge   is   still   a   listener.     Listeners   are   more   interested   when   the   speaker   engages   them.       A   more   interested   listener   pays   closer   attention   to   what’s  being  said.    Would  any  advocate  NOT  want  the  judge   to  pay  closer  attention  to  what  he/she  says?   The   “know   your   audience”   theme   also   applies   to   opening   statements   presented   to   a   jury.     The   prevalence   of   television   trial   dramas   creates   an   expectation   in   the   jurors.   The   expectations   are   most   prevalent   in   the   cross-­‐ examination   and   closing   argument   stages   of   the   trial   process.     However,   juror   expectations   exist   throughout   the   trial  –  and  those  expectations  revolve  around  the  concept  of   entertainment.    Jurors  have  an  expectation  that  a  trial  will  be   a   form   of   entertainment   and   the   challenge   of   the   advocate   is   to   meet   those   expectations   without   minimizing   the   importance  of  the  justice  process.       Meeting   expectations   for   entertainment   means   engaging  the  jury  panel.    One  simple  way  for  an  advocate  to   engage  a  jury  panel  is  to  use  V-­‐A-­‐K  as  a  foundation  for  trial   preparation.8     The   “V”   stands   for   visual,   the   “A”   stands   for   auditory,   and   the   “K”   stands   for   kinesthetic.     Listeners   process   information   in   one   of   these   three   ways   and   by   including   elements   of   V-­‐A-­‐K   in   the   opening   statement,   the   advocate   is   assured   of   engaging   each   member   of   the   jury   panel.9       3. Direct   Examination.     The   primary   purpose   of   direct examination   is   to   tell   the   decision-­‐maker   your   case   story through   your   witnesses.     The   basic   proscription   for   direct examination   is   to   make   the   witness   the   star.     This   task   is easier   said   than   done.     The   advocate   has   to   understand his/her  role  –  that  of  the  director.      The  stage/film  industry describes   a   director   as   “a   storyteller   who   needs   a   lot   of people,  equipment,  creativity  and  planning  to  bring  his  story to  a  movie  audience.  And  in  the  process,  the  director  has  to hold   on   to   the   vision   while   dealing   with   temperamental artists,   union   contract   requirements,   uncooperative weather,   studio   time,   budget   demands   and   a   handful   of other  uncontrollable  uncertainties”.10 The  advocate,  as  trial  director,  has  to  lead  the  witnesses   to   tell   the   story,   using   open-­‐ended   questions   rather   than   leading  questions.    The  open-­‐ended  questions  model  –  who,   what,   when,   where,   how,   describe,   and   explain-­‐type   questions   –   is   a   conceptual   theory   that   can   be   difficult   to   master.    It  is  difficult  to  master  because,  in  general,  most  of   our  conversations  are  cross-­‐examinations.    It  is  much  easier   to   control   the   direction   of   a   conversation   through   leading   questions,   so   the   skill   of   using   open-­‐ended   questions   to   direct   a   conversation   is   one   that   has   to   be   learned   and   developed.         The   reason   that   open-­‐ended   questions   are   effective   on   direct  examination  is  they  are  designed  to  elicit  information.   The  brain  engages  differently  when  it  is  asked  to  search  for   information.    Here  is  a  classic  example:       Scenario   One:     At   the   end   of   a   presentation,   the   presenter   often  asks,  “do  you  have  any  questions?”    The  brain  engages   with   a   “yes”   or   a   “no”.     If   the   answer   is   “yes”,   then   the   student  must  determine  whether  or  not  to  ask  the  question,   whether  the  professor  actually  wants  questions,  whether  the   question  will  potentially  embarrass  the  student,  whether  the   question   is   on   point,   and   any   number   of   other   options.     By   the  time  this  thought  process  has  occurred,  the  time  window   for  questions  is  typically  closed.   Scenario  Two:    At  the  end  of  a  presentation,  instead  of  asking   “do   you   have   any   questions”,   the   presenter   asks   “what   questions  do  you  have?”    The  brain  engages  immediately  by   looking   for   questions   without   any   of   the   pre-­‐screening   analysis  that  occurs  in  Scenario  One.11       4. Cross  Examination.    The  purpose  of  cross-­‐examination  is  to bolster  your  story  of  the  case  and  to  poke  holes  in  the  other side’s   story.     The   basic   proscription   for   cross-­‐examination   is the  advocate  is  the  star  and  controls  the  focus.      Essentially, the   advocate   becomes   the   witness.     Continuing   the   analogy of   the   advocate   as   trial   director,   on   cross-­‐examination,   the advocate   turns   the   focus   of   the   audience   away   from   the witness.     The   advocate   controls   the   focus   by   limiting   the amount   of   information   the   witness   gives.     The   limiting   effect is   accomplished   through   using   the   technique   of   leading questions. A  leading  question  contains  the  answer  in  the  question   and   presents   the   witness   with   the   opportunity   to   agree,   by   saying  “yes”,  or  to  disagree,  by  saying  “no”.      However,  there   is   a   trap   for   advocates   learning   the   technique   of   cross-­‐ examination   because   a   leading   question   isn’t   really   a   question   but   a   statement   to   which   the   advocate   wants   the   witness  to  agree.    The  trap  shows  up  through  the  use  of  tag   words,  placed  at  the  end  of  the  statement,  in  order  to  create   the   question   effect.     Typical   tags   on   cross-­‐examination   are   “correct”,  “isn’t  that  right”,  “didn’t  you”,  etc.       Here   is   what   a   cross-­‐examination   about   a   trip   to   the   grocery  store  might  look  like  using  tags  words:   Q:    You  went  to  the  grocery  store,  correct?   A:    Yes.   Q:    You  bought  some  bread,  correct?   A:    Yes.   Q:    You  bought  some  milk,  correct?   A:    Yes.   Q:    You  bought  some  eggs,  correct?   A:    Yes.   There  are  two  primary  problems  with  using  tag  words.   Frist,   as   Mark   Caldwell   from   the   National   Institute   of   Trial   Advocacy   would   say,   they   are   clutter.     They   are   just   unnecessary.     Second,   they   shift   the   focus   of   the   listener   to   the   tag   word   and   away   from   the   content   of   the   question.   The   focus   shift   happens   because   the   vocal   emphasis   ends   up   on  the  tag.   Here   is   the   same   cross-­‐examination   as   above,   only   without  the  tag  words.   Q:    You  went  to  the  grocery  store.   A:    Yes.   Q:    You  bought  some  bread.   A:    Yes.   Q:    You  bought  some  milk.   A:    Yes.   Q:    You  bought  some  eggs.   A:    Yes.       The   general   rule   of   thumb   on   cross-­‐examination   is   to   keep   the   questions   short   and   to   limit   them   to   one   fact   per   question.    The  more  precise  the  question  on  cross,  the  more   the   advocate   can   limit   the   amount   of   information   the   witness  gives.       5. Closing   Argument.     The   purpose   of   closing   argument   is   to connect   all   the   “dots”   for   the   decision-­‐maker.     Often, connecting   the   “dots”   presents   a   problem   for   the   advocate because  closing  becomes  a  recap  of  the  evidence  presented. What   is   lost   in   a   recap-­‐style   closing   are   the   inferences   that can   be   drawn   from   the   facts   and   the   evidence.     It   seems counter-­‐intuitive,   but   many   times,   openings   look   more   like closings   and   closings   look   more   like   openings. 12       This counter-­‐intuitive   switch   happens   in   part   because   the advocate   loses   sight   of   the   case   story   by   focusing   too strongly   on   the   evidence   presented   and   not   strongly   enough on  what  the  evidence  means.    The  focus  problem  can  usually be  attributed  to  an  over-­‐reliance  on  the  jury  charge  to  create a  structure  for  the  closing. Trial  Advocacy  –  Applicable  Law   Rules  of  Evidence  –  Federal,  State   Trial  Advocacy  –  The  Story  of  the  Case   The   story   of   the   case   is   usually   developed   around   the   case   theme.     What   makes   a   good   theme   is   its   universality   because   it   then   transcends   the   varying   experiences   of   the   listener(s).     When   an   advocate   transcends   the   listeners   experiences,  the  Persuasion  Triangle  has  achieved  its  goal.       A  story  also  creates  imagery  for  the  listener.    Imagery  is  important  because  it   is   the   gateway   to   a   deep   structure   connection   for   the   listener   and   that   connection   allows  the  advocate  to  be  persuasive.    A  straight,  chronological  recitation  of  the  facts   does  not  open  the  gateway.   The   two   following   passages   illustrate   the   difference   between   straight,   chronological   recitation   of   the   facts   and   a   persuasive   story.     The   Battle   of   the   Alamo   was   a   turning   point   in   fight   for   Texas.     The   first   passage   describing   that   event   is   from  Encyclopedia  Britannica13:   For   13   days   the   Alamo’s   defenders   held   out,   but   on   the   morning   of   March  6  the  Mexicans  stormed  through  a  breach  in  the  outer  wall  of   the   courtyard   and   overwhelmed   the   Texan   forces.   Santa   Anna   had   ordered   that   no   prisoners   be   taken,   and   virtually   all   the   defenders   were  slain  (only  about  15  persons,  mostly  women  and  children,  were   spared).   The   Mexicans   suffered   heavy   casualties   as   well;   credible   reports  suggest  between  600  and  1,600  were  killed  and  perhaps  300   were   wounded.     Although   the   Texan   defenders   suffered   defeat,   the   siege   at   the   Alamo   became   for   Texans   a   symbol   of   heroic   resistance.   On  April  21,  1836,  when  Houston  and  a  force  of  some  800  men  routed   1,500   Mexicans   under   Santa   Anna   at   San   Jacinto   (see   Battle   of   San   Jacnito),  the  Texan  forces  shouted,  “Remember  the  Alamo!”   The  second  passage  describing  that  event  is  from  James  Michner’s  Texas.   By   seven   that   Sunday   morning   the   battle   was   over,   as   complete   a   victory  as  any  general  could  have  hoped  for.    The  Tejas  rebellion  was   crushed  almost  before  it  was  fairly  launched,  and  Santa  Anna,  joyous   in  his  triumph,  gave  one  last  order:    ‘Burn  them  all”.    And  the  pyre  was   lit,   and   all   but   one   were   burned.     By   special   dispensation   of   General   Cos,   the   body   of   Gregorio   Esparza   was   released   to   his   brother   for   burial.     Into   an   unmarked   grave,   unhonored   and   spat   upon,   were   thrown   the   ashes   of   the   Alamo   heroes,   but   even   before   the   acrid   fumes  from  the  fire  died  away,  men  in  various  parts  of  the  world  were   beginning   to   utter   the   name   with   reverence,   and   anger,   and   hope,   and   determination.     ‘The   Alamo!’   screamed   newspapers   throughout   America.    ‘The  Alamo!’  whispered  men  to  their  wives  as  they  prepared   to   leave   for   greater   battles   in   the   future.     And   in   the   weeks   ahead,   when   men   from   all   parts   of   Texas   and   the   United   States   began   to   muster  to  avenge  this  savagery,  they  voiced  a  threat,  a  blood  oath  that   would   bind   them   together:   ‘Remember   the   Alamo!’   Both   passages   are   factually   accurate   but   the   second   one   creates   a   deep   structure   connection  for  the  reader.    The  deep  structure  connection  is  particularly  important   in  jury  trials  where  studies  show  that  most  jurors  have  made  up  their  minds  about   the  case  after  opening  statements.14   Trial  Advocacy  –  Glasl’s  9-­‐Stage  Model   Applying  Glasl’s  Model  in  the  trial  stage  means  the  conflict  has  moved  on  the   dispute  resolution  continuum  into  a  win-­‐lose,  or  lose-­‐lose,  dynamic.    Based  on  the   chart  (Appendix  1),  the  win-­‐lose  dynamic  encompasses  Stages  4-­‐6  of  Glasl’s  Model   and  the  lose-­‐lose  dynamic  encompasses  Stages  7-­‐9  of  the  Model.    It  is  hard  to   disagree  with  the  premise  that  there  is  a  winner  and  a  loser  in  the  trial  context.     There  are  also  trials  in  which  both  parties  feel  like  the  loser.    More  specific   evaluation  in  the  trial  context  helps  determine  in  which  of  the  six  available  Stages   the  presented  conflict  resides.       Trial  Advocacy  –  Deep  Structure   Deep   structure   elements   are   more   easily   discernable   in   the   trial   context   than   in   some   of   the   other   advocacy   sections.     The   trial   context   provides   a   direct   connection   to   a   story.     It   is   through   the   story   that   an   advocate   connects   to   a   case.     The   connection   is   facilitated   because   stories   contain   themes   and   those   themes   usually   have   an   emotional   element.     Once   the   advocate   makes   the   connection   to  the   specific   emotional   element   in   the   case,   he/she   can   get   insights   into   how   the   case   may  be  impacting  him/her.   As   an   example   of   how   the   deep   structure   connection   occurs   in   the   trial   context,  consider  a  case  where  the  theme  is  “betrayal”.      It  would  rare  for  a  person  to   reach  adulthood  without  having  experienced  some  sort  of  betrayal  in  his/her  life.    It   is  also  important  to  note  that  even  though  the  primary  theme  is  “betrayal”,  and  an   advocate   may   make   a   deep   structure   connection   to   a   secondary   theme,   a   tertiary   theme,   or   even   to   a   seemingly   innocuous   fact.     The   important   point   for   the   advocate   is   to   recognize   the   deep   structure   connection,   and   to   understand   how   that   connection  might  be  impacting  the  advocate’s  experience  of  the  case.   Trial  Advocacy  –  Skill  Development   Students   should   prepare   and   present   a   5-­‐minute   closing   argument   of   their   “client’s”   case.    For  this  exercise,  the  “client”  is  the  same  student  in  the  class  that  the  student   worked   with   during   the   client  interviewing  exercise   and   the   story  of  the  case  exercise.     The   goal   is   not   to   present   a   technically   correct   closing   argument   but   to   take   facts,   evidence,   and   law   and   weave   them   into   an   organized,   persuasive   presentation.   Students  may  use  notes  for  this  presentation  but  should  not  be  permitted  to  read  a   prepared  closing.