My notes 3

Question 1

Laziness and impact on theory?

Answer 1

Human beings look for one explanation that reconciles the greatest number of discrepancies.
We are cognitively lazy. Simple solutions create cognitive ease. Confidence creates cognitive ease.

Question 2

How do people percieve reality?

Answer 2

Individuals create their own subjective reality from their perception of the input.

Question 3

What will the other side do?

Answer 3

We cannot pretend that the other side isn’t going to powerfully proclaim our weakness.

Question 4

Defense lawyes and complexity?

Answer 4

Both criminal defense lawyers and civil defense lawyers use complexity, ambiguity, and confusion to prevent juries from taking action against their client.

Question 5

Contradictions in thoery?

Answer 5

Abandon contradictory and weak theories of the case.

Question 6

Rule of the road

Answer 6

Rules of the Road provides a framework for constructing a theory that helps find an explanation for the contradictions and discrepancies: a juror-oriented, easy to understand, legal based principles, that must be endorsed by the defense or they risk losing all credibility.
There is no “safe” explanation to a well-identified rule of the road. Disagreeing with a Rule of the Road should hurt the defense as much - or even more - than agreeing with it.

Question 7

System 1 vs system 2

Answer 7

System 1: Fast, unconscious, automatic, everyday decisions, error prone.
System 2: Slow, conscious, effortful, complex decisions, reliable.

Question 8

What does your case have to be for you to win? How do you accomplish this?

Answer 8

The case has to be simple if you’re going to win. To make it simple you have to first understand the entire universe of facts.

Question 9

Framing in voir dire?

Answer 9

How do you frame the question the jury answers in a way, that if the answer favors you, you will win.

Question 10

Opening statements, how to start

Answer 10

First few sentence grades:
F: “I’m sorry you have to be here.”
D: “Thank you for your service.”
C: “You’re going to hear…”
B: “This is a case about…”
A: “Predators choose their victims.”

Question 11

is a timeline an argument? What, when, where, who?

Answer 11

What, where, when, who: None of these details are argumentative but can be building blocks of a theory.
Timelines are not argument and can provide the framework for resolving discrepancies in a way that supports your theory of the case.

Question 12

Cast of characters and argumentitive

Answer 12

Case of Characters are not argumentative when you describe actions, but become argument when you begin to explain the reasons behind the actions (unless the witness will testify, which is why the rule against argument in opening is confusing).

Question 13

Arguments vs not an argument

Answer 13

Not an argument: “Alex Jones went to Sandy Hook and he interviewed the parents, saw the pictures of their children, and went to their graves. He even went to their funerals.”
Argument: “Alex Jones knew these were real children and knew they got shot. He was lying.”

Question 14

What is an argument?

Answer 14

An argument: You tell the jury who to believe or disbelieve, you express an opinion on certain facts, you analyze the evidence, you explain the significance of testimony, you provide perspective, you interpret, recognize an argument by the word, “so.”
In closing you argue.

Question 15

How to respond to argumentative objection during opening?

Answer 15

Objection in opening. Response: “The witness will testify…”, “the evidence will show…”

Question 16

Theory of the case and direct examination

Answer 16

Eery witness you call must support your theory of the case.
Use of open-ended questions allows your witness to be asked why and how and explain questions…
Same is true for exhibits.
Testimony is proof. Make sure you reinforce exhibits as corroboration and not sole evidence of proof.

Question 17

Cross and case theory?

Answer 17

Are there simple, basic truths about the world that can be stated in simple, direct language?
Will the defendant look ridiculous if they disagree?

Question 18

Where is the final argument

Answer 18

The final arguments is not closing; it’s what happens in the jury room.

Question 19

Objectives of closing argument

Answer 19

Objective of closing argument: Transfer the case to the next advocates. Pass out the weapons to your friends on the jury.

Question 20

Three types of jurors during closing

Answer 20

The 3 type of jurors left: 1) those that are four you, 2) those that are against you, 3) undecided.

Question 21

Who do you focus on during closing?

Answer 21

You have to focus on every juror. You have no idea who is for or against you.

Question 22

Dead reckoning

Answer 22

Once you commit to an argument you have to commit. If you take back your word later on, the jury won’t believe you.

Question 23

Asking jurors to commit on a position you know you’re going to lose?

Answer 23

Don’t.

Question 24

Theory during closing

Answer 24

Communicate that you believe in your case and that you have a simple theory. The time for nuance has passed.

Question 25

Clear guidance and closing

Answer 25

Clear guidance: Give them the answers you want them to supply on the jury sheet.

Question 26

Tools during closing

Answer 26

Tools: Power point of charge with your answer written in. Professor likes to explain why by using words of witness, exhibits, burden, and the law.
You can directly quote the witness (either from daily transcript or your notes). This is far more effective than paraphrasing. You can also ask for a specific page instead of a full transcript (cheaper).

Question 27

Spelling and court reporter

Answer 27

Give court reporter spellings of everything you plan to say that is going to be difficult to spell.

Question 28

highlighting exhibits in closing

Answer 28

Everything in evidence can be part of your closing argument. Highlight the three or so most important exhibits. Highlight to them that they have access to these, and how they can use them.

Question 29

Cheat sheet in closing

Answer 29

Cheat sheet: To answer this question, look at exhibits x, y, and z.

Question 30

Judge in closing

Answer 30

Juries always love the judge. Use the judge’s instructions to help you make your argument. Draft your charge and try to convince the judge to use it.
Being read the charge by judge is really boring. Contextualize it and humanize it as part of your closing argument.
Don’t just take a picture of the charge. Rewrite it. Highlight key words. Explain how those words, in the context of your case, favor your side.

Question 31

When are charges read

Answer 31

Charges are read after both sides rest, but before both sides close.

Question 32

What does the jury charge drive?

Answer 32

everything from discovery to closing.

Question 33

Where should you start trial prep?

Answer 33

Start trial prep with closing. Figure out what you’re going to need to argue and then figure out how to get there.
Closing is a great planning tool, even if it isn’t the most persuasive tool.

Question 34

What should closing entail?

Answer 34

What should closing entail? Your story fleshed out with all the facts, witnesses (bolster or discredit), jury charge (use the questions and tell the jury what evidence answers the question), conclusion (righteous indignation), your personality and your client. Also, review witnesses (facts elicited, expert qualifications & opinions, battle of experts [comparison], restate any memorable or important quotes), line up the jury charge with evidence (question, answer, evidence), final summary.
But don’t go overboard. Don’t hit every tiny detail. Craft a simple story that provides the jury with the tools you want them to have.

Question 35

Delivery during closing

Answer 35

Delivery: Eye contact, alter volume speed and tone, incorporate ethos logos and pathos, appropriate affect…

Question 36

Limits in closing argument

Answer 36

The golden rule (you can’t say imagine you were the plaintiff/defendant, you can only talk about it generally), no personal statement of belief (I met with them four times and they’ve always been consistent), nullification arguments, misstating the law, attacking opposing counsel.

Question 37

How to deal with a bad fact, step 1?

Answer 37

Step 1: Is a fact truly beyond change/disbelief? Can you nudge it into a different category? Is it subject to opinion.
Step 2: Can you discredit it? Is there additional evidence that neutralize it.
Step 3: Can you block it? Objection, motion to suppress, daubert hearing (?), motion in limine.

Question 38

When to innoculate

Answer 38

You know opponent is going to use the fact to impeach your witness and you want to neutralize the impeachment.
Introduce a mild version of the bad facts, ideally in jury selection.
Successfully refute the mild version of the bad facts.
Prepare the audience in advance so when they hear all the facts they minimalize the impeachment value.
Inoculation strategy is often used when introduction of the fact is inevitable and the fact may be irrefutable.

Question 39

Benefits of inoculation

Answer 39

It builds your credibility (ethos based appeal), it says you are a person of integrity (the jury can trust you), eliminates having to advance weak arguments, demonstrates vulnerability (which increases ethos).

Question 40

Sponsorship

Answer 40

Ignore the bad facts/wait for them to bring it up

Question 41

inoculation cons

Answer 41

By bringing it up you lose the possibility that the other side won’t bring it up or that you can block it.
Source attributuion

Question 42

Source attribution

Answer 42

The persuasive impact of an intel of evidence is decisively influenced by the identity of the party who is offering that evidence.
The attorney sponsoring the evidence endorses the evidence as important, reliable, and credible.
The attorney puts their personal credibility on the line…
The case cannot be stronger than the party’s own lawyer asserts. The jury assumes the attorney is bringing the best possible evidence to the trial in order to win.
Your evidence that supports your theory will be discounted. You are biased. Evidence that you admit hurts your theory will be given full credibility. Jurors know that you wouldn’t admit this if it wasn’t true because otherwise you would deny it.
Juries looking for easy way through case. Fact-finding is hard. Concessions make everything easier. Confessions are possible and difficult to overcome. Your brain shuts off once you learn of a concession.

Question 43

How much effort is jury trying to put in

Answer 43

Your words in voir dire and opening will be scrutinized for concessions.
The jury assumes you are presenting the best case with minimal effort. If it is long and tedious to introduce an exhibit, it had better be worth the time and effort. If it’s not, you’ve heard your case.

Question 44

Inconclusive evidence

Answer 44

it directly communicates you don’t have better evidence.

Question 45

Sponsorship benefit

Answer 45

Sponsorship benefits: Make them prove it, realpolitik/machiavellian, risk averse (for lawyers).
It is risky for witness. Witness doesn’t want to look like a fool or like they are hiding something from the jury.

Question 46

Payoff of innoculation

Answer 46

Inoculation doesn’t have same payoffs because you have to pay a price (this doesn’t mean that there aren’t times when you should use it, just consider all of the costs).

Question 47

Sponsorship and voir dire informaiton

Answer 47

If you choose sponsorship, you won’t know what the jury thinks about the issue.

Question 48

What to do with those you know disagree with you

Answer 48

Just try to strike those you aren’t going to be able to persuade.
Figure out how you and person you are trying to persuade are similar and how they are dissimilar from the other person trying to persuade them.

Question 49

How to treat jurors

Answer 49

Develop rapport with jurors. Respect them. Treat them each as a judge. Don’t try to persuade them.

Question 50

Tripple P problem

Answer 50

Preacher. Trigger: Sacred beliefs in jeopardy. Action: Deliver sermons to protect and promote our ideals. Person wants to self-protect their ideals.
Prosecutor/defender/lawyer. Trigger: Recognizing flaws in others argument. Action: Find counterarguments to prove them wrong and win our case. [This is about counterarguments, not persuasion]. Not consistent with empathy.
Politician. Trigger: need to win over an audience. Action: Campaign and lobby to our constituents; pandering.

Question 51

Can you persuade someone who hates you?

Answer 51

You cannot persuade someone who hates you.
Persuasion is a process that requires us to make some sort of connection with our audience.

Question 52

meeting with oposing counsel

Answer 52

Small talk is important. Establish a professional relationship with opposing counsel at start of the case (ex. Get coffee together).
If client wants you to handle opposing counsel in a way you don’t want to, try to find out why they want you to do that before you respond.

Question 53

How do you find out what councel is feeling?

Answer 53

Your not just a lawyer. You’re a counsel. You have to know how your client is feeling. To do this you have to ask. You have to understand where they are coming from. Then you need to advise them and explain why you need to do what you need to do.
It is particularly hard for people to make good decisions when they have trouble translating the choices they have into what they will experience.
Organize the context in which people make decisions.

Question 54

Always allow a way for the other person to

Answer 54

save face

Question 55

Traditional negotiation

Answer 55

bottom line, why you really want, how you’re going to get there, counters to counterpart’s arguments. But this only gets mediocre results.

Question 56

Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)

Answer 56

Achilles heal to traditional nagotiating technique.
Obsessing over BATNA turns it into your target and sets the upper limit of what you will ask for.
BATNA shouldn’t be centerpiece.
Instead, know what you can’t accept and what is the best-case outcome (although best case might be better than you know based on info you haven’t acquired).

Question 57

Setting goal for negotiation

Answer 57

People who expect more (and articulate it) get more.
Set an optimistic but reasonable goal and define it clearly. Write it down. Discuss it with a colleague. Carry the written goal into the negotiation.

Question 58

Prepping for negotiation

Answer 58

Summarize and write out in just a couple of sentences the known facts that have led up to the negotiation.
You have to clearly describe the lay of the land before you can think about acting in its confines.
You must be able to summarize in a way that your counterpart will respond with a “that’s right.” If they don’t, you haven’t done it right.
Prepare three to five labelt to perform an accusation audit.
Make a list of any accusation counterpart may make, no matter how unfair.
Prepare three to five calibrated questions to reveal to you and your counterpart and identify and overcome potential deal killers.

Question 59

Looking beyond counterpart stated position

Answer 59

Effective negotiators look past their counterparts’ stated positions (what the ydemand) and delve into their underlying motivations (what is making them want what they want).
Be relentellesly curious about what is motivating the other side. It might not conflict with your motives.

Question 60

Loss vs gain

Answer 60

Never forget that a loss stings at least twice as much as an equivalent gain.

Question 61

noncash items

Answer 61

Prepare a list of noncash items possessed by your counterpart tht would be valuable.

Question 62

Three types of negotiators

Answer 62

Three types of negotiators: Accomodators, assertive, analysts.

Question 63

Who should speak first in negotiation

Answer 63

As a well-prepared negotiator who seeks information and gathers it relentlessly, you’ree actually going to want the other person to name a price first, because you want to see his hand.

Question 64

What is the problem in a negotiation

Answer 64

In any bare-knuckle bargaining session, the most vital principle to keep in mind is never to look at your counterpart as an enemy. The person across the table is never the problem. The unsolved issue is. So focus on the issue.

Question 65

Ackerman method

Answer 65

Ackerman method: 1) set your target price (your goal), 2) set your first offer at 65% of your target price, 3) calculate three raises of decreasing increments (85, 95, 100), 4) use lots of empathy and different ways of saying no to get the other side to counter before you increase your offer, 5) when calculating final amount, use precise, nonround numbers like, say $37,893 rather than 38,000. It gives the number credulity and weight. 6) On the final number, through in a monetary item (that they probably don’t want) to show you’re at your limit.

Question 66

People getting ocncessions often

Answer 66

People getting consciessions often feel better about the bargaining process than those who are given a single firm, “fair” offer. In fact, they feel better even when they end up paying more or receiving less than they otherwise might.

Question 67

motivating others to change

Answer 67

We can rarely motivate someone else to change. We’re better off helping them find their own motivation to change.
Start with an attitude of humility and curiosity. We don’t know what might motivate someone else to change, but we’re genuinely eager to find out.
The goal isn’t to tell people what to do; it’s to help them break out of overconfidence cycles and see new possibilities.
Our role is to hold up a mirror so they can see themselves more clearly, and them empower them to examine their beliefs and behaviors.
Ask open-ended questions, engage in reflective listening, affirm the person’s desire and ability to change.
A key turning point, was when Arnaud told me whether I chose to vaccinate or not, he respected my decision as someone who wanted the best for my kids. Just that sentence–to me, it was worth all the gold in the world.

Question 68

Why do people ignore advice

Answer 68

When people ignore advice, it isn’t always because they disagree with it. Sometimes they’re resisting the sense of pressure and the feeling that someone else is controlling their decision. To protect their freedom, instead of giving commands or offering recommendations, a motivational interviewer might say something along the liens of “here are a few things that have helped me–do you think any of them might work for you?”

Question 69

How to start when trying to convince otehrs

Answer 69

When we try to convince people to think again, our first instinct is usually to start talking. Yet the most effective way to help others open their minds is often to listen.
Motivational interview requires a genuine desire to help people reach their goals.
Listening well is more than a matter of talking less. It’s a set of skills in asking and responding. It starts with showing more interset in other people’s interests rather than trying to judge their status or prove our own.

Question 70

What is discovery like

Answer 70

Discovery is invasive, risky, and expensive. It is the hammer that makes every problem a nail.
Once you start receiving discovery requests, the first thing you do is send off your own.
Motions to compel, arguments with opposing counsel are very expensive.
Discovery is finding facts (including those contained in documents and things) in someone’s possession, custody, or control.

Question 71

Scope of discovery state

Answer 71

Scope of discovery in state court: Reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ex. you can request hearsay if is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, even though it isn’t admissible itself.

Question 72

Scope of discovery federal

Answer 72

Federal court: any “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”
Federal court standard is narrower. It leads to less fights in front of judges.

Question 73

Goal of discovery

Answer 73

Investigation, understanding universe of facts, testing client’s (your case is never better than the day it is filed) and opponent’s story against reality, preserving evidence (in case it gets destroyed or a witness isn’t available to testify), story development (facts that support your theory and your opponent’s theory), ethos (demonstrating competence, preparedness, aggressiveness), and other less savory goals (ex. Drive up costs, for purpose of harassment).

Question 74

forms of discovery

Answer 74

disclosures, interrogatories (sworn answers to questions in writing), requests for production and inspection, request for admission (you ask them to admit a fact), depositions.

Question 75

What can you ask in deposition

Answer 75

Deposition standard is reasonably calculable. You want stuff that you can use in court (ex. For impeachment), but you can ask questions for all kinds of reasons. You might just genuinely want to know something or where else you should be looking.

Question 76

Defending deposition

Answer 76

Ability to advocate during them has been narrowed. Counsel representing deponent has to keep mouth shut. Can only object to form.

Question 77

assume everything you said to opposing council

Answer 77

Assume everything you said to opposing counsel is going to be an exhibit.

Question 78

prepping for deposition

Answer 78

Know what you need to know and the areas you need to ask about. Have an outline but be flexible depending on what answers you get.

Question 79

Behavior in deposition

Answer 79

Listen to witness
Make eye contact with witness. Develop a relationship with the deponent.
Manage your tone, use it strategically.

Question 80

Single sentence method

Answer 80

CCC takes too long (bored and confused jurors). But in the deposition you said X? No build up, but also not putting breaks on trial.
In practice you get to decide if something merits CCC vs single sentence method.

Question 81

Four methods of impeachment

Answer 81

What are the four methods of impeachment? Prior inconsistent, direct, probability, and ?

Question 82

Jury selection goals

Answer 82

Figure out what the strike zone is. Theory of jury selection. Ways of going about it. Primary reason for jury selection is for gathering information. Don’t waste time telling story. You need to spend time learning about people who could end up in strike zone. Strikes for cause. One other thing?

Question 83

Four means of impeachment

Answer 83

prior inconsistent statement, direct credibility, omission, probability

Question 84

Where does impeachment usually come from? Implications?

Answer 84

Normally comes from unexpected answer in cross. Generally give people latitude/grace. Ask if they want to change their answer. If witness admits contradiction, imp is complete.

Try to lock witness into previous statement or do direct credibility attack

Question 85

Three categories of cross examination

Answer 85

obrain agreements: Remeber there is only one case. Your job is to bring out helpful information from every witness that likely wasn’t elicited on direct.
Limit testimony: Demonstrate that the witness’s testimony does not matter and does not contradict your theory.
Impeach credibility: This is a direct attack on the witness’s integrity. The goal is to fundamentally destroy the witness and the lawyer who called the witness.

Question 86

Impact of prior inconsistant statement

Answer 86

• A witness’s memory is not so perfect that he can testify at trial to precisely what he said in a deposition unless he has chosen to memorize a version of events.
• Lawyers sometimes make too much of the fact that honest witnesses often testify somewhat differently about events when questioned at different times.
• Few of us, and few jurors, expect immaculate consistency…such minor variations do not betoken falsity. Indeed, they may be the very trademarks of sincerity.
• The cross-examiner must decide whether there is a major inconsistency or [a] sufficient [number] of lesser inconsistencies to warrant an attack.

Question 87

Types of inconsistent statements

Answer 87

Implies more than previously stated, “i don’t remember,” remembers details that weren’t in previous statement, exaggeration, implied contradiction, direct contradiction

Question 88

Refeshing recollection steps

Answer 88

1) witness can’t remember a detail
2) ask if there is something that would help refresh their recollection
3) witness agrees to refresh
4) witness reviews material
5) lawyer takes materials away
6) witness testifies

Question 89

Past recollection recorded

Answer 89

1) witness can’t remeber
2) offer to refresh
3) witness reviews
4) still can’t remember
5) a prior statement was recorded at a time when memory was good
6) statement can be read into the record - but not introduced as an exhibit

Question 90

CCC method

Answer 90

Build up to tear down
Commit, credit, confront

Question 91

Committ

Answer 91

Commit the witness to the testimony made on direct

Question 92

Credit

Answer 92

demonstrate how the circumstances of making the prior statement are more reliable than the testimony on direct

Question 93

How to boost accuracy

Answer 93

Prior statement was closer in time to the events, prepared for deposition/witness interview prior to giving statement, chance to review statement before signing it, could reflect upon statement and change it if there was something you later remembed, circumstances conducive to accurate statement, circcumstnaces of prior statement conduciv e to thorough and detailed statement, you knew others would rely upon your statement and you wanted to be accurate.

Question 94

How to boost credibility

Answer 94

Under oath, under penalty of perjury, false statement to law enforcement is a crime, gravity of situation, you took your oath seriously, you wanted to be accurate, you know people would rely on your statement, you did not change your statement afterwards, the first time you’ve told anybody this new statement is today in court

Question 95

Confront

Answer 95

Confront the witness with the prior statement. If the witness admits the contradiction, impeachment is complete. If the witness denies the contradiction, you may introduce extrinsic evidence to prove the prior inconsistent statement.

Question 96

Single sentence method

Answer 96

Unquestionable contradiction.
ex. “You just swoer to this jury that the light was red, but in your deposition at page 12 line 13 you swore: what color was the light, it was green.

Question 97

Direct attack on credibility

Answer 97

Bias in favor or against a party, relationship with other witnesses or parties, witness has an interest in outcome, witness only testifying for direct personal beneift, witness shifting blame to avoid the spotlight.
Prior conviction, prior bad acts, reputation evidence, character for untruthfulness, witness is self-important, witness is being compensated.

Question 98

Imeachment by omission

Answer 98

1) show the person being impeached knew they need to be complete when the earlier statement was given, either by a pre-existing duty or because of the setting in which the statement was taken
2) there was a place in the earlier statement where the critical and heretofore unmentioned facts should have been raised.
3) Under the factual circumstances of this case, at the time of the making of the document, report, or hearing, the matters were known and were important

Question 99

Impeachment by probable life experience

Answer 99

1) psychodrama: put yourself in the witness role. This is what the jury does when a witness testifies. Think of how you would react, what you would say, what you would do.
2) what did the witness do/say that seems to contradict what you would do if you were in their shoes?
3) what did the witness fail to do or say that seems to contradict what you would do if you were in their shoes?
4) this impeachment must advance your trial theme

Question 100

four purposes of voir dire

Answer 100

1) Learning (70%), 2) connection (15%) , 3) education (5%) , 4) persuasion (10%)

Question 101

Strike zone

Answer 101

First 12 jurors (six who get in plus three peremptory strikes each)???

Question 102

Traditional model of voir dire

Answer 102

Use voir dire to sell the jury your story

Question 103

selection model of voir dire

Answer 103

use voir dire to determine strikes

Question 104

Integrity model of voir dire

Answer 104

Use voir dire to sell yourself to the jury

Question 105

What is voir dire not?

Answer 105

It is not a speech. It is not a closing argument. It is not an opening statement.

Question 106

Goal of voir dire

Answer 106

Create an evironment where people are willing to share and make people feel heard.

Question 107

Leaders in voir dire

Answer 107

You want to flush out leaders against you and hide leaders for you

Question 108

follows voir dire

Answer 108

You want to flush out followers against you and hide followers for you

Question 109

Script in voir dire

Answer 109

You must follow a script. Your questions must be well-crafted, concise, and productive. You cannot do anything half-baked or disorganized. Your time is strictly limited. Every second matters.

Question 110

Precision in voir dire

Answer 110

Be precise. If you ask a general question it invokes too many variables and too may possible answers. You may or may not find the person who can give you an honest answer because the question is so broad.

Question 111

fears on voir dire

Answer 111

Share your fears with the jury and let them take care of you.

If you show vulnerability people will take care of you. They want to help you. Build a group where you’re the leader. Do not do anything to exclude a juror until you have permission from the panel.

Question 112

Go first in voir dire

Answer 112

You go first.

If you want a veniresperson to share with you, you have to share with them first on difficult issues. If you share a story where you’re vulnterable, they’ll follow. If you share an opinion or analysis, they’ll share an opinion or analysis.

Question 113

experience and voir dire

Answer 113

A peron with experience is not at the mercy of a person with an opinion.

You are searching for life experiences, not pronounced opinions. A person can change their mind; they cannot change their experience.

Question 114

more or less topics voir dire

Answer 114

It is better to cover 3 topics thoroughly rather than to try to cover 20 topics in a rush.

Question 115

monumental experience voir dire

Answer 115

Find the person’s monumental experiences.

Divorce. The death of a child. Being the victim of a crime of vioelence. Lok for the big things that build, cement, and fundamentally alter your life.

Question 116

appreciation on voir dire

Answer 116

Be appreciative when a eprson share something that exposes a vulnerabilty; be professional when they simply answer a queestion.

You don’t say “thank you for sharing” after every question on direct. You don’t need to do so during voir dire.

Question 117

Accept voir dire

Answer 117

Accept and honor the gifts the jury gives to you.

Question 118

Outline for voir dire

Answer 118

Summary of the case in one sentence
Introduction of the team even though nobody really cares about your names
Share your fear with the jury
Scaled questions to begin conversation
Topic 1
Topic 2
Topic 3
How to prove things
Discussion regarding the jury charge and the law

Question 119

peremptory strike

Answer 119

One of a limited number of special jury challenges given to each party before trial. A peremptory challenge results in the exclusion of a potential juror without the need for any reason or explanation - unless the opposing party presents a prima facie argument that this challenge was used to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.

Question 120

Challnege for cause (TX)

Answer 120

A challenge for cause is an objection to a juror, alleging some fact which by law disqualifies him to serve as a juror in the case or in any case, or which in the opinion of the court, renders him an unfit person to sit on the jury.
Upon such challenges the examination is not confined to the answers of the jury, but other evidence may heard for or against the challenge.

Question 121

Challenges for cause (Federal)

Answer 121

All challenges for cause or favor, whether to the array or panel or to individual jurors, shall be determined by the court