5 STORYTELLING TIPS FOR A WINNING OPENING STATEMENT

 

Storytellers have techniques that they use to bring the story to life and make it persuasive, engaging, and interesting. These are techniques you can employ when crafting and delivering an opening statement. Here are five tips:

1. Viewpoint 

To be effective, a story should be told from a viewpoint. When the story is told from a viewpoint it is more likely that jurors will connect with it. There are at least three viewpoints to select from: (1) Your client’s viewpoint or the victim’s viewpoint if you are a government lawyer; (2) the third person’s or reporter’s viewpoint - like the Greek Chorus looking down on the play’s action, and (3) the omniscient viewpoint – the shifts from one viewpoint to another.

2. Language

The language you use in opening should be clear, simple, and devoid of any legalspeak. Don’t do this:  

• “The decedent walked into the room.”

• “Let’s consider the points of impact between my client’s vehicle and the adverse vehicle.”

• “The aforementioned party subsequently was wrongfully terminated.”

3. Details

Give the jurors too many details and the story gets lost. Give them and too few details, and the story isn’t real. Eliminate unnecessary details that clutter the story. Include details that make the story come alive and become real.

4. Word Pictures

If you want to evoke emotion, paint word pictures. Look at this paragraph and read it as fast as you can: 

Aocdcrnig to a rsereearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dse-no’t mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt thing is that the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. This is bcuseae the human mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Olny 57% of plepoe can do it.

Interesting—isn’t it? Our brains don’t think in words or numbers—we convert them into pictures. We convert words into pictures and emotions. Language does this. We see words. Go right to it – paint pictures and create emotions.

5. Word Choice

The words you select can be ones that y reach the mind and move the heart. There is a big difference between “she said” and “she begged.” When the story calls for it, pick the right words to express emotion.

If you found these storytelling tips useful, you could get a copy of my book Addressing the Jury: Opening Statement and Closing Argument. This short book is reasonably priced at $8.99 for the Kindle ebook and $9.29 for the paperback. Click here to get your copy.

Opening Statement: Your Golden Opportunity as a Trial Lawyer

 

Opening Statement is a golden opportunity. As a trial lawyer, opening statement is your chance to communicate your message in your words. It is a golden opportunity for three reasons. 

First, you can provide the jurors with the story of your case in your own words. Opening statement will aid jurors in organizing and understanding the evidence as it is presented during trial, creating a sketch on the jurors’ mental canvas.  Brushstroke by brushstroke, the sketch gains color, and the jury can visualize the picture you want them to see. 

Jurors want a story. Our history is a history of storytelling. We pass on our culture with storytelling. Our stories are told online, in newpapers, in plays, in movies. It’s all storytelling. If you don’t provide a story, opposing counsel’s case narrative may control the jurors’ perception of the case. Alternatively, if opposing counsel does not supply a convincing case narrative, the jurors are likely to concoct their own, and this story may not be in your favor. 

Second, opening statement provides a first impression on the jury. For the first time, jurors hear your full message.  According to the rule of primacy, an audience is likely to remember what they hear first.

Third, because you deliver the message, you control how it is crafted and presented.  During the rest of the trial until closing argument, the evidence will necessarily be presented in fragments, and it will often be introduced out of chronological order.  But, throughout your opening, your message should be clear and convincing.  During the rest of the trial until closing argument, however, your messengers will be witnesses.  Although you have some control over how witnesses impart information, you do not have complete control.

For more information about how to craft a dynamic opening statement see Addressing the Jury: Opening Statement and Closing Argument (2023 and only $9.29) and Trial Advocacy, 5th Edition (2023).

FIVE STORYTELLING TIPS FOR A WINNING OPENING STATEMENT

 

Storytellers have techniques that they use to bring the story to life and make it persuasive, engaging, and interesting. These are techniques you can employ when crafting and delivering an opening statement. Here are five tips:

1. Viewpoint 

To be effective, a story should be told from a viewpoint. When the story is told from a viewpoint it is more likely that jurors will connect with it. There are at least three viewpoints to select from: (1) Your client’s viewpoint or the victim’s viewpoint if you are a government lawyer; (2) the third person’s or reporter’s viewpoint - like the Greek Chorus looking down on the play’s action, and (3) the omniscient viewpoint – the shifts from one viewpoint to another.

2. Language

The language you use in opening should be clear, simple, and devoid of any legalspeak. Don’t do this:  

• “The decedent walked into the room.”

• “Let’s consider the points of impact between my client’s vehicle and the adverse vehicle.”

• “The aforementioned party subsequently was wrongfully terminated.”

3. Details

Give the jurors too many details and the story gets lost. Give them and too few details, and the story isn’t real. Eliminate unnecessary details that clutter the story. Include details that make the story come alive and become real.

4. Word Pictures

If you want to evoke emotion, paint word pictures. Look at this paragraph and read it as fast as you can: 

Aocdcrnig to a rsereearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dse-no’t mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt thing is that the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. This is bcuseae the human mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Olny 57% of plepoe can do it.

Interesting—isn’t it? Our brains don’t think in words or numbers—we convert them into pictures. We convert words into pictures and emotions. Language does this. We see words. Go right to it – paint pictures and create emotions.

5. Word Choice

The words you select can be ones that y reach the mind and move the heart. There is a big difference between “she said” and “she begged.” When the story calls for it, pick the right words to express emotion.

If you found these storytelling tips useful, you could get a copy of my new book Addressing the Jury: Opening Statement and Closing Argument. This short book is reasonably priced at $8.99 for the Kindle ebook and $9.29 for the paperback. Click here to get your copy.

Beware of Danger Zones When Addressing a Jury: My Cousin Vinny

Beware the danger zones when addressing a jury. Why should counsel avoid violating the Rules of Professional Conduct when addressing the jury? The consequences of a violation include: a mistrial; reversal of a favorable verdict; loss of your license to practice law; a judge’s reprimand; and damage to your reputation. 

This post identifies common danger zones for trial lawyers when addressing a jury. Here is a prosecutor delivering an opening statement:

“The State will call Mr. Ethridge, who has tendered a plea of guilty to attempted strong-arm robbery.  And I’ll say this from the bottom of my heart, that there is one soul, who was at one time unclean and is now clean. . .  That’s good for the soul, and he is looking forward to this.  As much as someone tragically is, he’s at a point where he wants to be clean.  That’s really what it’s all about.  And there will be evidence in this case that Mr. Ethridge is wanting to let it all out.   This is his day to let all these things fly.  He’s beyond that now.  Hallelujah.”  

The South Carolina Appellate Court in Gilchrist v. State, 565 S.E.2d 281, 285 (S.C. 2002) explained that the solicitor (prosecutor): “Cannot vouch for the credibility of a witness by expressing or implying his personal opinion concerning a witness’ truthfulness. . .” Rule of Professional  Conduct 3.4 states that counsel shall not state a personal opinion as to . . .the credibility of a witness.”

Here is another prosecutor in closing argument: “Whenever a jury acquits a person who has been proven guilty they don’t follow their oaths.  And if you let the defendant, Tracy Nelson, walk out of this courtroom on this evidence I would suggest you have not lived up to your oaths.” The Florida Court of Appeals held: “. . .ultimate deductions from the evidence are for the jury to draw.  Counsel may argue what deductions in his judgment the evidence would reasonably support, but under no circumstances is he warranted in offering dogmatic statements as to what the evidence proves.” People v. Nelson, 737 N.E.2d 632, 639, 193 Ill. 2d 216 (2000).

Regarding dogmatic statements to the jury, watch this scene from My Cousin Vinny:

Another danger zone is never say “I”. RPC 3.4 (d)(3) states: “A lawyer shall not in appearing as a lawyer before a tribunal on behalf of a client shall not: assert a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused but the lawyer may argue, upon analysis of the evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matters stated herein.

A mother cat decided to take her kittens out for a walk. The kittens had never been outside the house. They encountered a Rottweiler that was growling and drooling at them. The mother cat went up face to face with the dog—and barked. The Rottweiler turned and ran away in fear. The  mother cat took her kittens back under the porch, gathered them around her and said, “Now I need to talk to you about the importance of a second language. 

The point is that you need not state a personal opinion; use a second language. Never say, “I”; say, “The evidence shows.” 

How to Tell a Compelling Story in Opening Statement

A prior post (This is How to Begin Your Opening Statement) discussed how to grab the jury’s attention at the beginning of opening statement. This post covers the body of an opening statement and the concluding remarks.

After beginning your opening with an attention-getter, you want to tell a compelling narrative story. This can be done with a flashback, starting with a dramatic part of the story and following that by beginning at the beginning and telling the story chronologically. Or you could tell the story in chronological order, starting at the beginning. Otherwise, don’t jump around because a chronological story is what we remember best. 

The body of your opening should tell a story about a human being or multiple people, usually your client(s). It describes the event or events in dispute, and it should be about human values and human needs. The body of the opening should be a story of good versus evil that gets the jurors to care. Also, the opening should introduce the players in the story.

Watch this clip from The Staircase, which is a documentary about a murder trial in North Carolina made by a French director. The documentary is unique in that it captures not only what happened in trial but also behind the scenes for both the prosecution and the defense.

As you watch, note the attention-getting opening using a contrast of the pictures of the victim before and after the damage to her skull.  Watch how the prosecutor humanizes her. He describes the dispute, and he tells the story visually with pictures, diagrams and the blow poke.

Every case has its weaknesses, some minor and sometimes major. What if anything can be done about case weaknesses? It may be so trivial that you can ignore it. However, if you ignore a significant weakness, then when the other side reveals it, the problem is compounded because it looks like you tried to hide it. You may be able to eliminate the weakness with a motion in limine if it is inadmissible. 

If the weakness is significant, defang it if at all possible. Fully disclose the weakness and put it in its best light. Disclose it at the right time. Start strong, finish strong and bury in middle is good adage. But, weave the weakness into story. For example, if a witness changed their story from the first report, build that into the chronology. First, she didn’t mention something when first interview because she was traumatized but the next day she told full account accurately.

Should you discuss damages, and if so, in what depth? For the plaintiff’s lawyer, views differ, and it depends on case. As plaintiff’s lawyer, you can focus on liability.  Convince them of liability and when convinced, then deal with the award. Another approach is to  cover the consequences of each injury. As to the amount, plaintiff’s lawyer can speak in general terms—”in the millions” Or, as plaintiff’s lawyer, you can give the jury an amount, so they understand the magnitude.

Defense counsel may be reluctant to discuss damages because that would appear to concede liability. But you can discuss damages without conceding, as in the following example: 

“We all sympathize with the family.  What happened is tragic.  But, this trial is not about whether the family deserves sympathy.  You jurors are here to decide whether the men and women of Clean Corporation, who designed and manufactured this chain saw, are responsible for the accident. (Tell the story of what happened.)

“That’s what happened.  The evidence will show that the folks at Clean Corporation did not cause his death.  You should never reach the question of damages.  However, plaintiff’s counsel has talked to you about damages and the money they want.  Therefore, let’s look at what they are asking . . . (Follow with the deficiencies in the damages calculations and other issues relating to damages.)”

Start Strong and end Strong. A good conclusion to opening replays the theme, states why the jury should render the verdict and requests a specific relief. 

In the Novell case, Microsoft’s counsel ended this way:

“We think that at the end of the case you will find that there is no liability, that there was no anticompetitive conduct, and that Novell wasn’t hurt by anything Microsoft did.  We also think that you will find that the operating system competition would not have been affected; Windows would have remained just as popular as it was regardless of the NameSpace extensions APIs. And lastly, even if you thought that there was some liability, we will ask you at the conclusion to determine that damages are zero because the decline in WordPerfect and Quattro Pro and the suite was a function of Novell’s misjudgments and Novell’s bad business choices and also of the great products that Microsoft was making.  Thank you.” 

Replay the theme, tell them why they should render the verdict and tell them what the verdict should be.

Here’s a prosecutor concluding the opening: “As I said at the outset, the defendant did it not for love, not out of anger, he killed her out of greed. At the end of this trial, we will ask you to return a verdict that the facts dictate and that justice demands. That verdict is guilty.”

This is How to Begin Your Opening Statement

 

How should an opening statement be STRUCTURED? This and a couple following posts will cover how to structure your opening statement and WHAT TO INCLUDE IN EACH PART. 

Here, let’s focus on the BEGINNING of opening statement. The first minutes of your opening statement are critical. That’s when you grab the jurors’ attention and make them want to hear and see more. Under the rule of primacy, what you begin with is what they are likely to remember. So, seize their attention and make them want to hear more. begin with something memorable. Where were you on 9-11? 

What grabs our attention and is memorable? We remember traumatic things – vivid things. 

You can begin with your CASE THEME. Watch the prosecutor in the manslaughter trial of Conrad Murray for killing Michael Jackson. Watch how the prosecutor states the case theme and then segues to a human story about Michael Jackson.

You can start with a SCENE.  You want an attention getter—one with emotion. Here is how the prosecutor began the opening in the Oklahoma Bombing Trial of Timothy McVey:

MR. HARTZLER:  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, April 19th, 1995, was a beautiful day in Oklahoma City – at least it started out as a beautiful day.  The sun was shining. Flowers were blooming.  It was springtime in Oklahoma City. Sometime after six o'clock that morning, Tevin Garrett's mother woke him up to get him ready for the day.  He was only 16 months old.  He was a toddler; and as some of you know that have experience with toddlers, he had a keen eye for mischief. He would often pull on the cord of her curling iron in the morning, pull it off the countertop until it fell down, often till it fell down on him.

That morning she picked him up and wrestled with him on her bed before she got him dressed. She remembers this morning because that was the last morning of his life.

Another option is to begin with SHARP CONTRASTS. Contrast a calm scene of human activities juxtaposed against that of a violent act. Zacarias Moussaoui was prosecuted in federal court for conspiring to kill citizens of the United States   as part of the September 11 attacks. Here is the BEGINNING of an Opening statement of Asst U.S. Atty Robert Spencer in the prosecution of Moussaoui – one of the 9-11 terrorists: 

Thank you, Your Honor. 

September 11th, 2001 dawned clear, crisp and blue in the northeast United States.  In lower Manhattan in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, workers sat down at their desks tending to e-mail and phone messages from the previous days.

In the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, military and civilian personnel sat in briefings, were focused on their paperwork.

In those clear blue skies over New York, over Virginia, and over Pennsylvania, in two American Airlines jets and in two United Airlines jets, weary travelers sipped their coffee and read their morning papers as flight attendants made their first rounds.

And in fire and police stations all over New York City, the bravest among us reported for work.  

It started as an utterly normal day, but a day that started so normally and with such promise, soon became a day of abject horror.  By morning's end, 2,972 people were slaughtered in cold blood.

And that clear, blue sky became clouded with dark smoke that rose from the Trade Towers of New York, from the Pentagon in Virginia, and from a field in rural Pennsylvania.  And within a few hours out of that clear, blue sky came terror, pain, misery, and death, and those 2,972 never again saw their loved ones, never again gave their kids a goodnight kiss. 

That day, September 11th, 2001, became a defining moment, not just for 2,972 families, but for a generation.

Killers were among us that day and for more than just that day.  Those killers had lived among us for months, planned for years to cut our throats, hijack our planes, and crash them into buildings to burn us alive.    

 

On that day, September 11, 2001, a group of cold-blooded killers from distant lands capped their plan, their conspiracy, to kill as many innocent Americans as possible.  . . .

David Ball, author of David Ball on Damages, recommends to Plaintiff’s lawyers that they start with THE RULE. Ball’s theory is that the jurors want most to know what the case is about. It’s about the defendant breaking the rule.

“A driver is required to watch and see what’s there to be seen. If a driver does not for an instant and as a result hurts someone, the driver is responsible for the harm.”

You have these fine choices for beginning your opening statement. You can begin with a theme, a scene, a sharp contrast or the rule. Make it an attention getter that will make the jurors want to hear and see more of your opening statement.

Winning Speech Techniques for Opening Statement

As we discussed in prior articles here delivering a compelling opening statement is storytelling. Storytellers have storytelling techniques that bring the story to life and make it persuasive, engaging and interesting.

To be effective, a story should be told from a VIEWPOINT. When the story is told from a viewpoint it is more likely that jurors will connect with it. There are at least three viewpoints to select from: (1) Your client’s view point or the victim’s viewpoint if you are a government lawyer; (2) the third person’s or reporter’s viewpoint - like the Greek Chorus looking down on the play’s action, and (3) the omniscient viewpoint – the shifts from one viewpoint to another.

The LANGUAGE you use in opening should be clear and simple. Don’t do this:  

• “The decedent walked into the room.”

• “What were the points of impact between your vehicle and the adverse vehicle.”

• “What was the nature of your conversation?”

• “The aforementioned party subsequently was wrongfully terminated.”

TOO MANY DETAILS and the story gets lost and TOO FEW DETAILS and the story isn’t real. Eliminate unnecessary details that clutter the story. Include details that make the story real.

Watch the following scene of storytelling from the movie A Time to Kill. Assume that the lawyer is giving an opening statement for the prosecution or plaintiff. 

Evaluate it for the content – is it a compelling story about a human being and involving human values and needs?

Evaluate the storytelling – What storytelling techniques are used?

Note that the lawyer had a viewpoint – that of a reporter. The language chosen is simple and clear. There are enough details to bring the story alive. The story is told in the present tense ("she falls" rather than "she fell") as though the jurors are watching it happen before them. 

The story paints WORD PICTURES. If you want to evoke emotion, paint word pictures. Look at this paragraph and read it as fast as you can: 

Aocdcrnig to a rsereearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dse-no’t mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt thing is that the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. This is bcuseae the human mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Olny 57% of plepoe can do it.

Interesting – our brains don’t think in words or numbers – we convert them into pictures. We convert words into pictures and emotions. Language does this. We see words. Go right to it – paint pictures and create emotions.

Finally, the WORDS CHOSEN for this story reach the mind and move the heart. There is a big difference between “she said” and “she begged.”

Opening Statement is Trial Storytelling

 

This is the second in a series of articles about opening statement and closing argument - how to effectively craft and deliver them to a jury. We began with the concept that delivering an opening statement is storytelling. What are the essentials of a compelling story? A compelling story that will make the jury want to render a verdict for your client.

First of all, it should be a story about a human being. A person whom the jury can care about – normally your client. Someone to root for.

Here is Daniel Petrochelli, representing the plaintiffs in the O.J. Simpson civil case at the beginning of opening statement, telling the stories of two people who are about to be killed: 

“On a June evening, the 12th of June, 1994, Nicole Brown just finished putting her ten-year-old daughter, Sidney, and her six-year-old son, Justin, down to bed.  She filled her bathtub with water.  She lit some candles, began to get ready to take a bath and relax for the evening.  The phone rang.  It was 9:40 p.m.  Nicole answered.  And it was her mother, saying that she had left her glasses at the restaurant nearby in Brentwood, where the family had all celebrated Sydney’s dance recital over dinner, just an hour before.  Nicole’s mother asked if Nicole could please pick up her glasses from the restaurant the next day.  Nicole said, of course, good-bye, and hung up.  Nicole then called the restaurant and asked to speak to a friendly young waiter there.  Nicole asked this young waiter if he would be kind enough to drop her mother’s glasses off.  The young man obliged and said he would drop the glasses off shortly after work, on his way to meet his friend in Marina Del Rey.  The young man’s name was Ron Goldman. He was 25 years old. . .”

Sometimes the person you represent is not all that easy to like because he is accused of murder, or for another reason. Watch a former prosecutor Mark O’Mara and now a defense lawyer in the George Zimmerman second-degree murder trial for the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. 

What did O’Mara do to humanize Zimmerman? He refer to him by his first name, not as “my client.”  He addressed the impression of a defendant in a criminal case. He put his hand on Zimmerman’s shoulder. He humanized him.

What if your client is a corporation? In Novell v. Microsoft, the plaintiff’s legal theory was that Microsoft committed anticompetitive acts to undercut Novell’s WordPerfect word processor software and thus gain an unfair advantage for Microsoft’s software. Microsoft responded with its defense message that Novell’s product failed not because of Microsoft’s anticompetitive acts, but because Novell made bad choices and Microsoft makes great products. 

Here’s how David Tulchin Microsoft’s counsel humanized the defendant corporation:

“Microsoft’s Counsel: “Now, let me tell you a little bit about Microsoft. Many of you know a piece of the story.  Bill Gates was 19 and at Harvard College in Massachusetts in 1974, I believe, when he became very interested in actually a – what was then called a mini computer that he saw in a magazine, dropped out of college, and with his boyhood friend, Paul Allen, went to work in writing a computer programming language called Basic.  Some of you may even have heard of Basic.  A few years later, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who had started Microsoft, bought a software program from a company in Seattle, modified it, and developed what was called Microsoft DOS or MS DOS.”

The next post will examine other essentials of a compelling opening statement, specifically the values-and-needs and credibility components well as having a case theme.

OPENING STATEMENT IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY

 

The next series of articles here will focus on opening statement and closing argument - how to effectively craft and deliver them to a jury. We begin by exploring why opening is so important to trial persuasion.

Opening Statement is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. It is a trial lawyer’s chance to communicate counsel’s message in counsel’s own words to the jury.

Opening statement is a golden opportunity for three reasons. First, you can provide them with the story in your own words. Opening statement will aid jurors in organizing and understanding the evidence as it is presented during trial, creating a sketch on the jurors’ mental canvas.  Brushstroke by brushstroke, the sketch gains color, and the jury can visualize the picture you want them to see. 

Jurors want a story. Our history is a history of storytelling. We pass on our culture with storytelling. Our stories are told online, in plays, in the news, in movies; it’s all storytelling. If you don’t provide a story. opposing counsel’s case narrative may control the jurors’ perception of the case. Alternatively, if opposing counsel does not supply a convincing case narrative, the jurors are likely to concoct their own, and this story may not be in your favor. 

Second, opening statement provides a first impression on the jury. For the first time, jurors hear your full message.  According to the rule of primacy, an audience is likely to remember what they hear first.

Third, because you deliver the message, you control how it is crafted and presented.  During the rest of the trial until closing argument, the evidence will necessarily be presented in fragments, and it will often be introduced out of chronological order.  But, throughout your opening, your message should be clear and convincing.  In the rest of the trial until closing argument, however, your messengers will be witnesses.  Although you have some control over how witnesses impart information, you do not have complete control.

Trial Nervousness

Addressing a jury in opening statement and closing argument are exercises in public speaking. Studies have shown that the number one thing people fear most is public speaking. The second on the list of things people is death. Jerry Seinfeld put it well when he said, “At a funeral more people would rather be in the coffin than delivering the eulogy

Comedian Bob Hope said, “If you’re not nervous before you perform, you’re probably dead.”

We can’t make nervousness go away, but we can convert it into good energy. What we think of as nervousness is trapped energy. We just need techniques for converting energy into good energy. Here are a couple techniques to accomplish that.

A significant cause of our nervousness is that we think the audience is evaluating us. The most important technique we can use is to focus on the truth—that is that the jurors really don’t care about you. It’s not about you. You aren’t important. What they are looking for is what you can give them—the content of your address.

When you think about yourself and how you are perceived by the audience, it interferes with your communication and delivery. You should be thinking not about yourself but about the jury. Concentrate on getting the content in your mind to the jurors’ minds. Period. You don’t count—the content of your address counts.

The second most important technique for alleviating nervousness is to prepare and practice. Prepare—prepare—prepare; have it down cold. Hope Solo, gold metal soccer goalkeeper, put it this way, “Every athlete acquires routines as a way to help control nerves.”

 

IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE: BOOK REVIEW REVISITED

-->

You can find historic and outstanding openings and closings in this book: In the Interest of Justice – Great Opening and Closing Arguments of the Last 100 Years, HarperCollins Publishers, which was reviewed here in August of 2009. When you set out to craft your opening statement or closing argument, it is always helpful to refer to outstanding opening statements and closing arguments from the past, and this book provides them and continues to be an excellent resource.

--> The author of In the Interests of Justice is Joel J. Seidemann, Adjunct Professor at Pace Law School and Senior Trial Counsel in the New York County Attorneys Office. Professor Seidemann’s book contains excerpts from transcripts that meet Mr. Sideman’s two prerequisites. The selected cases are very high profile, including, among others, the trials of: O. J. Simpson; Marv Albert; Sean Puff Daddy Combs; Adolf Eichmann; Martha Stewart; John Scopes; Amadou Diallo; Timothy McVeigh. Second, the advocacy in these cases also satisfies the excellence test, with the lawyers demonstrating how to effectively use these devices: storytelling; analogies; phrasing; humor; pathos; logic; themes and so much more.

Joel J. Seidemann

-->

Beyond satisfying these two requirements, Mr. Seidemann arranged the material in ways that are both entertaining and educational. For example, he juxtaposed Daniel Petrocelli’s opening statement for the plaintiff in the O. J. Simpson civil trial against Johnnie Cochran’s closing in the criminal case showing how two fine trial advocates can work the same case. Further, Mr. Seidemann provides well-written introductory overviews setting the stages for the transcripts of the openings and closings as well as thoughtful postscripts describing case outcomes and providing thoughtful commentary on the cases and trial work by the lawyers.

This book continues to be a wonderful resource for trial lawyers, professors looking for illustrations of superb openings and closing and law students who are taking trial advocacy classes.

-->