You are absolutely right about the "amateur detective" business!

Even worse was the "amateur doctors". In my spinal fusion trial, we had to rely on OUR notes of what competing doctors said and two large boxes of "medical evidence" such as prescription pads ("Hey Cletus, what does 'PRN' mean?"). You haven't lived until you've seen a second grade teacher attempt to interpret an MRI.

I recall we ultimately discarded ALL the doctors testimonies from both sides as they effectively cancelled each other out and instead relied upon the Physical Therapist's notes. The PT was on the stand all of 10 minutes but we debated her notes for something like six hours.

Wait- John Edwards already wrote Four Trials. It's a very interesting read.

Richard- I believe a lot of folks would like to read about the trial you mentioned.

I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.~Ronald Reagan
This is the way to blog!

click here for the Conklin Murder case.

I sat on a jury in 1984 or so, and the defense attorney did a horrible job. In retrospect, I realized that he didn't have much to go on. We convicted his armed robber pretty easily, based upon the eyewitnesses and other collaborating evidence. But I thought the defense attorney did poorly in how he handled the case.

Well, while at home explaining to my wife about the trial and about the defense attorney, I saw the defense lawyer on television. I yelled at the wife and told her that this was the same guy in my trial. He was smiling away at the cameras, and was telling them that this Conklin murder trial was a classic example of self defense.

The link above shares with you the actual Supreme Court decision that recites, word for word, the deliberate indifference in Conklin's own confession. As I said, it is darkly amusing, and an interesting read, for those with strong stomachs. Claiming self defense in a case wherein the victim was stabbed dozens of times in the back with a screw driver, seemed a reach, but again, what else did he have to argue.

I appreciate your comments about your trial experiences. Jurors often are in a hurry to get out the door, but a few have shared with me their experiences. More often than not, their decision was predicated upon something I, nor opposing counsel, ever noticed. You're right. Jurors do like to be "detectives". I've got several injury trials coming up and they are very important cases with severe injuries. I'm always trying to get the 'feel' on the street of people, so that I know how to communicate with them effectively. Thanks for sharing.

Richard, another opinion FWIW. Jurors are certainly anxious to get out the door, and very impatient with holdouts. But one thing I have observed is that if jurors are induced to like you and/or your client, to be sympathetic, that can overcome a mountain of evidence because people are not objective no matter how much they claim to be. My observation is jurors make emotional decisions, not intellectual ones, and if you give them an excuse to find in your favor, if they have the warm fuzzies about you they will stretch to hell and back to be on your side and willfully ignore facts on the other side, so long as they can justify the decision in their own mind. A good attorney, seems to me, gives them the warm fuzzies AND the rationale for a favorable decision in the face of lots of facts to the contrary.

This is why, well one of the reasons, as a conservative who would be willing to throw the switch on Old Sparky myself if I knew for sure the murderer was actually guilty, I am now opposed to the death penalty. The quality of defense varies wildly with the depth of the pocket, and juries are fickle, prone to divine as fact things that were not proven in court, and make emotional decisions. Given those circumstances, it seems to me a very conservative view to deny the state the ability to kill someone.

Just an opinion.

Terry Garlock

9 months after starting my practice, I was standing before my first jury on a Felony case. I was nervous and worried because, well, it was my first trial, and my guy was looking at five years to serve. The fact that he confessed to the crime, gave me a bit of concern too.

Well, the prosecutor finally came off their two year offer, to accept one year, that my client agreed to take. I wiped my brow, happy that I wasn't going to be trying this case. But, Judge Ison, now retired, said no, he would take 4 years. Ouch, what a bad lawyer I was. I thought just convincing the DA was enough, but now my guy is looking at four years.

I went to my client, and he shrugged it off. He then informed me that he had knew the sentencing "grid" treated four years and five years sentences the same, which meant, a loss at trial meant nothing. Whoopee!

So I moved the court to throw out the confession, which Judge Ison quickly denied, and then the trial began. I went to bat aggressively cross examining the police detective. He hemmed and hawed at my cross and I was able to get his credibility challenged. Fact was, he was very sarcastic and the jury saw it, BUT, I caught him in an half truth. Since this case was my first, I had memorized each detail down to a tee, and I knew he had changed his testimony from a prior hearing we had months before.

So at break, I asked the prosecutor for the tape, held in her possession since the hearing. She said fine, but that I'd have to follow the rules of evidence to get it admitted, she would not stipulate to its authenticity. Real nice prosecutor.

So at lunch I'm running around to get the magistrate judge to testify that the tape was authentic. Yes, the DA forced me to get a Judge to testify for the defense. (Big mistake on their part.)

Then with the tape admitted, the judge looked down at me, and said, Mr. Hobbs, you can't play the entire tape. You must only play the portion that is relevant. I nervously agreed, and carefully listened to the tape, to the part that I wanted the jury to hear. I thought it was right, I'd checked it several times, but now the judge is looking at me, the jury is looking at me and I'm holding this tape player in my hands, listening to it for the right place to hit play.

I then approach the judge, and he says something to me, that maybe I ought to have a 30 second window of testimony in advance of what I wanted the jury to hear. I said great, so I hit the rewind button on the tape player and spoke to the judge privately, . . . . while it rewound.

I then hit play...

What I heard, was not what I wanted the jury to hear. Instead, what I heard being played over the speaker system was the private conversation that I and the judge had just had. Yes, you heard me right. The tape had never had its erase clip removed. So, instead of rewinding it, while standing in front of the judge, I had hit "RECORD".

So while it was playing, my back turned from the jury, looking up at the judge, drops of sweat flowing off my brow, I listened in horrific despair as it played for what seemed like an entirety.

Fortunately, the tape did not erase over all of the testimony and some of it was heard by the jury.

I then did my closing, wherein I wrapped myself in the American Flag and told the jury that they should throw out the confession in its entirety and if they do so, to acquit my client.

Whether it was my "Jeffersonian oration", which the Court Reporter and DA said won the case, or, whether it was the fact that the jury felt sorry for my client by being represented by an imbecile lawyer, a choice I tend to believe, the jury acquitted my client.

A thrill and a rush that I'll never forget. All of a sudden the evil prosecutor is shaking my hand, congratulating me on my win. The judge, balifs came to me and proudly told me that I was a promising young lawyer, something I think they did out of charity rather than respect.

Since then, I've tried dozens upon dozens of cases, and I've won the vast majority of them, albeit, some not quite as well as I would have liked. I still fear that I am not in tune with the jurors, since I am a very pragmatic fellow and that bias tends to prejudice how I interpret the facts of my cases, and as many on this blog have noted, emotion tends to be the biggest factor in the jury room.

Thanks for sharing

Nice humorous relief from everyone's political viewpoints that will never change:)