-->
It is important to get
law students out of the classroom and have them watch the real lives of trial
lawyers. For my Comprehensive Trial Advocacy course, Seattle University law students attend a day in trial and report on what
they observed. Consistently they praise this courthouse visit. It is satisfying
to read the students’ reports and to learn how being in the courtroom can be
such a rewarding learning experience for them. The following report is an
example from this semester.
TO BE A TRIAL ATTORNEY
By Emily Schwab, Seattle University Law School
Student & Law Clerk
I am a law clerk. I sent out an email to the attorneys in my
office asking to tag along to any upcoming trials in late January. I was slated to go to a trial at the end of
February. I had talked to the attorney
and had even helped him set up his trial notebook. Three days before trial, it was continued for
a fifth time because they could not find the plaintiff.
I decided to go to another trial down in Pierce
County. Once again, I read up on the
case and chatted with the attorney before the start day. I drove down to the courthouse and found the
attorneys and clients waiting in the hallway outside of a courtroom. Apparently the judge was unavailable because
the case before ours was expected to go on for another month. The trial was continued until June. The plaintiff was very upset because she had
already missed a lot of work to come down to the trial. The lawyers told me that this was a common
occurrence and that being a trial attorney is mostly about waiting around.
Finally, I was able to actually
attend a trial for a low impact traffic collision. The lawyers said it was a “mess of a
trial.” Tensions were high between
counsel and the parties did not agree on much of anything. There were some discovery violations by the
defense and two of their experts were excluded.
Accordingly, the defense had to quickly change their trial strategy.
The trial had already been continued
at least once so there were many scheduling conflicts prohibiting experts from
testifying in person. The judge
apologized to the jury and stated that live testimony is better but the
circumstances required that the testimony be a video. The plaintiff presented a
video deposition in lieu of live testimony on the first day I was
observing. The lights were low and
neither the jurors nor the judge appeared to be paying much attention. Following the video several jurors had
questions but were unable to ask them since the witness was not physically
present. Additionally, the plaintiff’s
counsel had misedited their video and had to read in significant testimony that
was cut from the final product.
On the second day the defendant intended to use the
video testimony of one of their expert witnesses. The attorneys argued about what portions were
admissible for 45 minutes. After the
judge ruled on the objections, the defense’s legal secretary literally ran the
list of approved segments to a videographer who would hopefully have the
changes done before court reconvened after lunch.
There was a marked difference in the jury when the
plaintiff was put on the stand for her live testimony. They were more engaged and many were leaning
forward. They were able to have their
questions answered and were presumably better able to assess the credibility of
her testimony. The attorneys were also better
able to react to what she was saying and what the jury seemed interested
in. Although the administrative requirements
of the video depositions are understandable, nothing can compete with live
in-court testimony.
It was also really interesting to see the different
courtroom styles of the various lawyers.
The plaintiff’s attorney had a relatively aggressive style. He argued forcefully that the defendant had
failed to produce discovery. I was never
able to get the full details of it, but the judge agreed with the plaintiff
that there were indeed violations. The
plaintiff’s attorney was likely justified in his argument but his tone was whiney
and unprofessional. Additionally, he was
visibly exasperated and loudly sighed several times while the defense was
responding.
On the second day of trial I sat with the
managing partner of our firm. She
pointed out key things that the lawyers on both sides did well and things that
they probably should not have done. The
defense lawyer referred to his client as “the defendant” more than once. The partner nudged me and told me never to do that
in a trial. Additionally, the defense
attorney used a large photograph of the plaintiff’s car as a demonstrative
exhibit. He was just going to hold it
with one hand while holding his notes in the other. His co-counsel attempted to bring him an
easel but had difficultly navigating it around other obstacles in the
courtroom. It created a bit of a
spectacle and would have run smoother if the attorney had been able to set up
first. Kelley also told me to always ask
the judge to publish an exhibit because a lot of attorney’s forget to do that.
After a bit of a rough start, the defense lawyer
asked a lot of great questions. The
client was a young man, only 22 at the time of the accident, and had a
difficult time focusing. Throughout the
video depositions he kept bouncing between sitting at the defense table and in
the benches in the gallery. His lawyer attempted
to help him get back on track and lead him through his testimony step by
step. However, he volunteered that he
had been cited for a traffic violation. All
four of the lawyers in the room had to hide a look of surprise when he said
that. Generally, police reports are
excluded from juries because they are prejudicial. I am not sure if the witness was not
sufficiently prepped by his lawyers or if he did not realize what he was
saying.
The plaintiff’s counsel had a masterful cross. The defendant essentially admitted to either
lying to the police officer at the scene or in court under oath. The plaintiff’s attorney had the witness in
the palm of his hand. Eventually the
defendant just kept talking and volunteering more information than he was
asked. Defense counsel was visibly
shaken. I was unable to watch the rest
of his testimony to see when the attorney was going with that specific line of
questioning. It would have been
interesting to see whether the defense was able to rehabilitate him.
I learned a lot from this experience. I did not realize just how much went into a
trial. Civil trials in King County are
scheduled more than a year out. Lawyers
work on these cases for years and there are innumerable things that make come
up before a verdict is read. I have
watched attorneys spend 20 hours one weekend preparing for a trial that settled
an hour before it was set to begin. I
have heard of cases settling on the front steps of the courthouse just before
closing argument. Most importantly, I
learned that life as a trial attorney is frustrating and unpredictable. Would we have it any other way?
No comments:
Post a Comment