Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Trial Techniques, Preparation & Practice
Trial Techniques, Preparation & Practice
Trial Techniques, Preparation & Practice
Glen E. Amundsen
SmithAmundsen LLC
150 N. Michigan Ave.
Suite 3300
Chicago, IL. 60601
Voice: (312) 894-3220
Fax: (312) 894-3210
E-mail: gamundsen@salawus.com
Website: www.salawus.com
Jurors most often use deductive reasoning to sort out what they believe occurred
when there are competing versions to pick from. That is, they work backwards
from their construct of what happened to reconstruct how the end result
occurred, i.e. what really happened;
Jurors often rely on a story model to make sense of the facts narrative/story
telling by witnesses and trial counsel is good. A good trial lawyer is a story teller
from beginning to end;
Jurors tend to default to their own preconceptions determined by their lifes
experiences and their worldview when they are not sure what really happened;
1
Jurors are very likely to follow their notions of the motive(s) of the key actors in
the story. They look at motives as helping determine whether it is reasonable or
not for people to behave in the manner they have testified to;
Primacy and recency are very important psychological factors when it comes to
juror recall and comprehension. That is, jurors remember best what they heard
first and what they heard last. Repetition of themes and key evidence is a good
thing (within reason);
Jurors (and judges too) make decisions much more quickly than any trial lawyer
would like to believe. In many instances jurors have made up their mind during
voir dire or before opening statements are concluded. To a large degree they
spend the rest of the trial listening for the evidence or arguments that will support
their point of view (consciously or subconsciously) when they are in the jury room
to deliberate. In other words they become advocates (knowingly or not) and may
take in the evidence as partisans. In the absence of compelling evidence to
change their initial assessment, jurors are not likely to sway from their initial gut
reaction to a case. This has serious implications for the trial lawyer especially as
it relates to getting to the point quickly and early in the case; and
Jurors are increasingly visual learners trial lawyers need to be adept at
communicating in means that are visually persuasive. Just telling the story is not
enough. Trial lawyers have to show decision makers the key evidence and
concepts too.
PREPARING A WINNING GAME PLAN
With these principles in mind, what follows are some key concepts or ideas that
should be considered when it comes to preparing a winning strategy and implementing
it at trial.
I.
Case Theme/Theory
Effective trial advocates can articulate their theory of the case within a few
succinct sentences in clear language that is easily understood. That theme or theory
must be communicated from the beginning of all interactions with the presiding
judge and the prospective jurors. If the theme cannot be written on the back of
your business card, you should consider revising it until you can. The KISS
principle applies here. Keep it simple and comprehensible. The theme should be
apparent from the questions posed in voir dire. It should be central to the opening
statement. It should be revisited and developed in the direct and cross examination of
the witnesses. Finally it should be framed at the beginning and ending of your
summation.
In almost all cases there are certain questions that must be answered positively
from the standpoint of your client in order for the jury to decide the case favorably. You
should spend time early in the case thinking about it in the context of those likely
questions. How will you marshal the available evidence to answer or address those
2
questions or issues? That has to be decided before you are in the courtroom and the
opposing counsel is addressing them to the jury for you. You want to affirmatively set
the ground or issues on which the case will turn, not allow opposing counsel to set the
agenda for you. Your theory of the case should be tied in to the answers to those
questions that you feel are crucial to the outcome.
II.
Communications Strategies
Good trial lawyers think like lawyers but talk like human beings. Avoid legal
jargon and terms of art. Speak plainly about why your client should win and the
factual basis for that conclusion.
In communications with the jury you want them to be identifying with your client
about some key issues:
Common understanding of the case what happened and why it is likely that it
happened as you say in contrast to what the other side says;
Common questions in the jurys mind you want them to identify with what you
say are the issues not what the other side says is important;
Common suspicions about the opposing partys case you want them to be
asking the same questions of the other sides evidence that you are.
It is critical to plan how ideas or concepts will best be communicated to the jury.
This can be accomplished by means of testimony from the witness stand, exhibits or
documentary evidence. Decide how and when (not whether) to use graphics and visual
aides to communicate. This can include the use of Power Point, trial presentation
software and the like to call out or highlight key evidence.
Above all keep in mind the basic commandment: Thou shalt not be a bore. After
all, sleeping jurors simply will not do when it comes to persuasion.
III.
Work with Your Client and Key Witnesses on the Communication of Their
Part of the Story
IV.
You have lived with the case for perhaps years. In all likelihood, you have given
much thought to the evidence and how it will be used by you and your opposing counsel
at trial to prove or disprove the case. Under these circumstances is not demeaning to
the presiding judge to presume that he or she has not. Make an effort at an early stage
to acclimate the court to the legal issues and evidentiary problems that you anticipate
will be raised.
Check the courts web site, the local rules, or take the time to speak with his/her
clerk. Does the judge require pretrial submissions of motions in limine, trial briefs and
the like? It is never a bad idea to prepare a simple and concise trial brief that
outlines the issues in dispute, the evidentiary issues that are likely to come up
during the trial, and to give the court the relevant authorities and rationale for the
proper ruling.
The trial brief should be clear and uncluttered. Copies of the key cases should be
supplied for the courts ease of reference. As with all filings there should be no
exaggeration or hyperbole.
This is part of the process of gaining the trust of the trial judge. Judges are
human. They want to be right as often as possible. While they do not control (to any
great degree) what evidence is going to be presented, they are looked to make rulings,
sometimes pivotal ones, on very short notice. They will come to have confidence in the
lawyer(s) that provide them with an understanding of the issues and controlling case
authorities or statutes that govern the admission of evidence and other issues they must
decide. While there will usually be no overt favoritism, it is only natural that after awhile
when there are close calls the court may tend to default to the position of the attorney
that has gained the confidence or trust of the judge. This is part of a conditioning
process that is subtle but is happening in every case as the judge becomes acquainted
with the case and the relative capabilities of the counsel working in his/her courtroom.
V.
It is also clear that jurors take cues from the judge and court personnel about the
trial lawyers and the behavior of witnesses in the courtroom. After awhile the jury begins
to have more confidence in the validity of arguments of the lawyer who is able to get
evidence in and who is sustained when objections are made. There is greater trust in
what is being advocated by those who know how to apply the rules of evidence in
4
court. Make sure that you have considered the basis for the admission of all key
evidence before it is proffered in court. Make sure that you have the ability to lay the
proper foundation for every key exhibit or opinion. Make sure that you have anticipated
the likely objections that opposing counsel will make and be prepared with the argument
or basis for your position.
Work with witnesses ahead of time as it relates to the required foundation for
introduction of testimony. Be sure there are no crossed up witnesses who do not
understand what it is you are asking when it comes to foundational matters.
Remember that the standard of review applied to a trial courts evidentiary rulings
is almost always abuse of discretion. The time to present the most cogent case for the
admission or exclusion of evidence is in trial court. It is difficult to secure a reversal of a
trial result on evidentiary grounds because of the difficulty in establishing an abuse of
discretion by the trial judge and /or the inability to convince a reviewing court that the
ruling was prejudicial even if it was wrong.
VI.
Direct Examination
Here is where the art of the story teller is most prominent. The object of the
questioning should be to tell the story in a clear, concise and uncluttered manner.
Thought should be given to the order of proofs so that proper foundation has been laid
for later evidence or witnesses. On direct examination the questioner wants to do
less of the talking and for the witness to do most of it. The tone should normally be
conversational and friendly. Now is the time to explain, justify conduct, provide
motivation for the actors and expound.
In the case of expert witnesses the most effective direct examinations are where
the expert witness assumes the role of a teacher. The proffering lawyer needs to know
how to direct the teacher onto the right topics and make sure the testimony is in a form
that meets the standards for admissibility. After that the object is to step aside and allow
the expert to gain the trust and confidence of the jury through demonstrated
competence about a subject beyond their knowledge or experience.
The basic outline to persuasively present the testimony of an expert witness is as
follows:
The decision to redirect a witness or not is a gut decision that must be played
based on a myriad of factors. However, in my experience attorneys redirect too much
and tend to over react to the cross examination. If redirect is done it should be short and
sweet.
VII.
Cross Examination
To get good stuff into the record (that opposing counsel did not bring out);
To discredit the oath taken by the witness (inability of the witness to understand
and appreciate obligation to tell the truth);
To test accuracy of the witness memory (usually with contradictory documentary
evidence or exhibits);
To test the perceptions of the witness and/or his/her ability to observe what has
been testified to;
To test the validity/accuracy of the assumptions underlying the testimony
(especially expert witness testimony);
To establish bias (preconceived opinions or position of the witness);
To establish interest in outcome (financial interest as opposed to preconceived
ideas about the outcome);
To impeach (bring out prior inconsistent statement or conduct); and
To question the character of the witness (bring out other facts that would
question credibility or cause distrust of the witness by the trier of fact).
If the questions that are being posed are not intended to do one or more of
the above then you should not step up to cross examine a witness.
I have found that it is often useful to conduct cross examination from a construct
of agreement as opposed to confrontation to the greatest extent possible. Starting out a
series of questions with the phrase Can we agree that is a very useful means to
control a witness without appearing overbearing. This can be used as a means to keep
the witness off guard or to avoid the impression that the attorney is ganging up on a
witness. It is often better than using a more provocative tone in many instances, for
example, phrasing questions with the proverbial Isnt it true that. or Isnt it a fact
that There are, of course, scenarios where it is very appropriate to be more
aggressive with the form of the question. This is a matter of style that needs to be
played consistent with the theme of the case. Too many attorneys loose the jury by
turning into a sort of attack mode when there are more subtle approaches that are just
as effective depending on the nature of the case and the witness being examined.
VIII.
The best way to prepare for trial is to prepare the jury instructions (this requires
identification of the issues in dispute and burden of proof) and to prepare the closing
argument (this requires marshaling the factual evidence to support the case theme or
theory). A more detailed checklist of the proper preparation for a trial is attached to
these materials as Exhibit A). Skilled trial lawyers also anticipate their opponent while
they are still in the planning phase of their trial preparation. Effective trial lawyers
prepare their opponents case in order to be best situated to counter the
opponents points and arguments.
The most successful trial attorneys are respectful of the time of others. They are
prepared. They are on time to court and they demonstrate that they have command of
the facts, documents/exhibits and trial process. They do not ask repetitive questions or
go over old ground excessively. It is clear from my experience that jurors are most
negatively impacted by perceptions that lawyers or the court and the lawyers are not
respectful of the time they are taking from their important affairs to do their civic duty to
decide the case. Excessive needless objections, delay in scheduling witnesses,
excessive sidebars and time outside of the courtroom should be avoided as they will
cause resentment to be visited on some or all of the parties seen to be the cause of
those delays. Counsel should be prepared to stipulate to matters that are not in dispute
in order to expedite the trial.
IX.
The foremost consideration here is that good trial lawyers never let it get
personal. They do not loose their temper. It is never good to allow the jury to see you
flustered by a ruling or by provocative conduct by other counsel involved in the case.
7
Likewise, it is not useful to allow a witness to get under your skin or for you to attempt to
do that to a witness or opposing counsel.
It is a matter of respect to stand when addressing the court at any time when
court is in session. Direct witnesses and your client to be compliant with all court rules
and to treat all court personnel (clerks, Sherriffs deputies, etc) with the same courtesy
and respect that is shown to the presiding judge. Ask your client and all witnesses to
rise when court is commenced and adjourned. Ask your client to refrain from excessive
communications or side bars with you while the trial is in progress. I give my clients a
note pad and ask them to write their questions or concerns on the pad if they need to
communicate with me while court is in session. All cell phones, pagers and the like
should be off and stowed away where they cannot disrupt court sessions.
All comments, objections or requests for relief should be directed to the court
while court is in session. It is never a good idea to be observed arguing or engaged in
discussions with opposing counsel in the presence of the jurors or while they are
entering or leaving the court facilities when court is adjourned.
Like many things in life the best advice for the proper conduct and etiquette of an
effective trial lawyer remains the same as what our parents preached when they sent us
off to kindergarten or preschool:
Stand up straight
Be nice
Look people in the eye
Speak up
Dont make a mess
TRIAL PRACTICE NUTS & BOLTS OF SOME KEY PARTS OF THE TRIAL
I.
Trial Subpoenas
1.
When a subpoena has been served but the trial does not proceed on the
date indicated, a motion to continue the effective date of the subpoena or
direct the witness to appear on a different date must be made. O'Brien v.
Walker, 49 III. App. 3d 940, 364 N.E.2d 533 (1st Dist. 1977).
2.
A court wilt not review the question of whether the trial court erred in
failing to compel attendance of witness where the trial subpoena is not
made part of the record. Schmitt v. Chicago Transit Authority, 34 Ill. App.
2d 67, 179 N.E.2d 838 (1st Dist. 1962).
II.
Motions in limine
1.
2.
b.
c.
d.
3.
III.
b.
4.
Failure to include the motion and order in limine in the record on appeal
results in a waiver. Pharr v. Chicago Transit Authority, 220 Ill. App. 3d
509, 581 N.E.2d 162 (1st Dist. 1991).
5.
A party is not required to object in front of the jury each time to preserve
for appeal a challenge to the admission of evidence; rather, a party may
object once, outside the presence of the jury, and ask for a continuing
objection. Romanek-Golub & Co. v. Anvan Hotel Corp., 168 Ill. App. 3d
1031, 522 N.E.2d 1341 (1st Dist, 1988).
The record must show that peremptory challenges have been exhausted
before alleging error in the selection of the jury. Davis v. Marathon Oil
Co., 28 III. App. 3d 526, 330 N.E.2d 312 (4th Dist. 1975), rev'd on other
grounds, 64 Ill. 2d 380, 356 N.E.2d 93 (1979).
2.
The voir dire, examination of the jury must be transcribed and made part
of the record if the reviewing court is to consider any errors committed
during voir dire. Gonzalez v. Prestress Engineering Corp., 194 Ill. App.
10
3d 819, 551 N.E.2d 793 (4th Dist. 1990). An attorney's affidavit detailing
what transpired is insufficient. Prochnow v. El Pam golf Club, 253 Ill. App.
3d 387, 625 N.E.2d 769 (4th Dist. 1993).
3.
Waiver:
a.
b.
Court shall put questions to the prospective jurors that touch upon their
qualifications.
Court shall permit the parties to supplement the courts examination by
direct inquiry subject to courts discretion as to length and scope of voir
dire.
Questions posed shall not directly or indirectly concern matters of law or
jury instructions.
Note: It is error for the court to prevent counsel from supplementing the courts
voir dire by direct oral inquiry to the prospective jurors. See Grossman v.
Gebarowski, 315 Ill.App.3d 213, 732 N.E.2d 1100 (1st Dist. 2000). This does not
mean that counsel may not ask the court to put questions to the jury so that the
questions are not posed by the counsel for a particular party. It is possible for
counsel to submit proposed areas of inquiry on voir dire to the court to be asked
directly by the presiding judge.
Challenges
735 ILCS 5/2-1105.1 (Challenge for cause)
E.g. admitted bias; pending suit in Circuit Court where case on trial is
pending; physical impairment making potential juror unable to serve;
inability to understand or appreciate the evidence; affiliation with one of
the parties, attorneys or court officers.
No limit on the number of challenges available for cause.
11
Practice Tip: If motion for cause is made in the presence of the venire and
denied, a peremptory should be exercised.
735 ILCS 5/2-1106 (Peremptory challenge)
Failure to have a transcript of the jury selection and voir dire examination
will likely result in waiver of any alleged improprieties during the course of
voir dire. See Crossman v. Curless, 178 Ill.App.3d 97, 532 N.E. 2d 1110
(4th District, 1988).
Waiver on motion to challenge for cause occurs if counsel fails to object to
a prospective juror and then fails to exercise peremptory must use up all
peremptory challenges allocated and make a record. Proper procedure is
to: (1) remove the juror who the court refused to remove for cause with a
peremptory challenge; (2) ask of an additional peremptory challenge after
all other peremptory challenges allocated by the court have been used;
and (3) make a motion for a mistrial after the court denies the request for
an additional peremptory. See Marcin v. Kipfer, 117 Ill. App. 3d 1065, 454
N.E.2d 370 (4th District 1983).
12
Stand up straight and speak in plain concise English drop the legal
vernacular and terms of art.
Move about the courtroom if you are comfortable but do not advance too
closely to the jury box or prospective witnesses being questioned.
Use the names of the people you are speaking to. Use their title such as
Mr. or Ms. and their surname. Ask for pronunciations.
Make direct eye contact when you are speaking to an individual or group.
Have someone else make written notes or, if that is not possible, save
your written notes for when you sit down and tender the panel to opposing
counsel. Instead make good mental notes and assessments of the
characteristics you feel are noteworthy about each person.
Just like cross examination, sometimes less is more. Be careful with too
much questioning and especially repetitive questioning. Understand that
many are tired and/or bored having heard the same questions and
answers many times.
Quiet confidence and competence are the order of the day. Prospective
jurors have expectations about counsel and how they should behave.
They will begin to sense who has command and control of what they are
doing. That party will gain credibility if technical competence and
confidence (or at least the perception of it) favors one attorney over the
other. You should know (generally) the type of juror that you are
attempting to select. Too much hemming and hawing about challenges is
detrimental in the presence of the jury. If time is required for reflection ask
the court for a sidebar or recess where the jury is not watching you ponder
which of them will need to be there for the next week or two.
13
know them and it will likely require a prospective juror to talk about
themselves to one degree or another.
The same can be said for asking about future career or employment or
educational aspirations.
Begin with some easy basic questions if at all possible and then work into
more difficult ones.
Do not ask prospective jurors if they can be fair or impartial.
It is okay to ask at the conclusion of questions whether there is anything a
prospective juror would like to add that they feel the parties should know
that bears upon their ability to be a fair/impartial decider of the facts. This
gives the prospective juror the opportunity to volunteer things that may
have not been touched upon. It is good to know if a juror is inviting you to
exclude them from the jury pool although many judges do not like open
ended questions of this sort because it allows for jurors to introduce issues
before the rest of the venire. When there is an affirmative response to this
question I often ask for the answer to be followed up outside the presence
of the rest of the venire.
Selecting the Jury How to Decide
IV.
Have a concept of who you are looking to have on the jury and who you
are not before you get to the courtroom.
It rarely helps to question that judgment in the heat of battle.
Understand that the person(s) you like the best are more than likely going
to be challenged by your opponent and make no reaction when that
happens. To the extent possible you do not want the venire, the judge and
most importantly opposing counsel to fully appreciate the qualities that you
are valuing or the type of people that you prefer over others.
Make sure that you are keeping track of your challenges and those of
opposing counsel. Periodically confirm that your tally correlates with the
court. Keep track of those excused for cause and why.
To the extent possible make challenges outside the presence of the
venire. If that is not possible thank any member you strike and do not
show any negative reaction to anyone who was stricken by either side.
Otherwise, it is necessary to follow the advice of an old Fleetwood Mac
song You have to play it the way you feel it. That is case specific.
This answers the first question in the jury's mind, i.e. who are you and who
is your client?
15
2.
This answers the next question, i.e. why am I here and what is the reason
there remains a dispute or the case has not been resolved outside of
court?
3.
Tell them what you want them to do in light of facts that you are about to
relate to them (conclusion).
This answers the next fundamental question, i.e. what does he/she want me
to do?
4.
This is what you will hear about the issues (tell the story - establish the
theme). Marshall the facts to succinctly establish (without argument) why
your theme or story is inescapably correct or represents reality.
This establishes the reason(s) why the jury should do what you are asking
them to do. In other words, it answers the next question the jury members
will have - why should I do what he/she wants me to do?
5.
Tell them thank you for their service and their attention to the evidence
6.
V.
Sit down
2.
3.
4.
a.
b.
c.
b.
c.
Offer of Proof: The trial court's refusal to permit the making of an offer of
proof is error. In re Marriage of Strauss, 183 Ill. App. 3d 424, 539 N.E.2d
808 (2d Dist. 1989).
When an objection by opposing counsel is sustained, the party attempting
to admit the evidence must make an offer of proof in order to
demonstrate, both to the trial and appellate courts, the admissibility of the
testimony which was foreclosed by the sustained objection. People ex rel.
Fahner v. Hedrich, 108 Ill. App. 3d 83, 438 N.E.2d 924 (2d Dist. 1982). An
17
(ii)
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
5.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
g.
h.
Gavin, 27 Ill. App. 2d 62, 169 N.E.2d 171 (2d Dist. 1960)
(speculative answer).
b.
c.
d.
6.
7.
An objection made by one party does not inure to the benefit of another
unless the latter party joins in the objection. Bunch v. Rose, 10 Ill. App. 3d
198, 293 N.E.2d 8 (4th Dist. 1973); Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 39
III. App. 2d 73, 187 N.E.2d 425 (1st Dist. 1963), rev'd on other grounds, 31
Ill. 2d 69, 199 N.E.2d 769 (1964). While ordinarily each party must make
his own objection to preserve a point for appeal, where a nonasserting
party is a codefendant with a unified interest in a contested evidentiary
issue, the trial court is not required to hear an objection from each party.
Country Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 144 Ill. App. 3d 28, 494 N.E.2d 152 (3d
Dist. 1986).
8.
In certain instances the trial lawyer may waive the right to make a
successful objection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
9.
10.
b.
Instructions
a.
In order to preserve the point for review, the record must show that
a 'specific objection was made to a given instruction or that a
tendered instruction was rejected. Aguinaga v. City of Chicago,
243 III. App. 3d 552, 611 N.E.2d 1296 (1st Dist, 1993). A party's
general objection will not suffice to preserve the issue for the
reviewing court's consideration. Gonzalez v. Prestress Engineering
Corp., 194 Ill. App. 3d 819, 551 N.E.2d 793 (4th Dist. 1990).
b.
c.
d.
e.
(i)
(ii)
22
f.
2.
3.
b.
Verdict form: In drawing up verdict forms, make sure that they cover
every possible finding the jury may make under the evidence from the
point of view of each plaintiff and each defendant. Eggimann v. Wise, 41
Ill. App. 2d 471, 191 N.E.2d 425 (2d Dist. 1963).
a.
b.
23
VII.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
1.
The record must show an objection to any alleged error in the closing
argument. Simmons v. University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics, 247 Ill.
App. 3d 177, 617 N.E.2d 278 (1st Dist. 1993), aff'd. 162 Ill. 2d 1, 642
N.E.2d 107 (1994).
2.
The closing argument must be transcribed and made part of the report of
proceedings. An affidavit of counsel as to what was said in closing
argument is not sufficient. Hoffman v. Wilson, 60 III. App. 2d 396, 208
N.E.2d 607 (2d Dist. 1965).
3.
4.
5.
Generally speaking it is error for counsel to request that the jury place
themselves in the shoes of a party. Drews v. Gobel Freight Lines, Inc.,
197 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 557 N.E.2d 303 (1st Dist. 1990), affd. 144 Ill.2d 84,
578 N.E.2d 970 (1991).
6.
7.
8.
VIII.
THE JURY
1.
2.
Waiver:
a.
b.
c.
The right to poll the jury should not be waived; avoid sealed
verdicts when possible. Gille v. Winnebago County Housing
Authority, 104 III. App. 2d 470, 244 N.E.2d 636 (2d Dist. 1969),
aff'd, 44 Ill. 2d 419, 255 N.E.2d 904 (1970); Sangster v. Van Heche,
67 Ill. 2d 96, 364 N.E.2d 79 (1977).
When polling the jury, the appropriate question to be posed to each
member of the jury, individually, is "Was this and is this now your
verdict?".
c.
d.
Insist that the trial court continue the jury poll and direct the jury to
retire for further deliberations or discharge it, if necessary, where it
discovers a juror is equivocal about the verdict in order to avoid
isolating and possibly coercing the juror. Bianchi v. Mikhail, 266 Ill.
App. 3d 767, 640 N.E.2d 1370 (1st Dist. 1994).
25
3.
December 2, 2006
26
*This presumes that proper investigation of the facts and discovery has been conducted
before trial and that facts have been marshaled by trial counsel (abstracts of
depositions, etc.).
I.
Review the Current Pleadings confirm what factual issues are in dispute.
II.
Draft the Jury Instructions know the applicable law regarding the issues raised
by the pleadings.
III.
Decide Upon the Theme or Theory of your Clients Case if you cannot write it
out on your business card it is too complex. (This should be something that you
have been contemplating and evolving since first contact with the dispute.)
IV.
Sift the Factual Evidence and contrast to the contested issues determine what
evidence (testimony or exhibits) will be required to meet the burden of proof on
the issues that are germane to your theme or theory.
V.
VI.
Issue S. Ct. Rule 237 Request to Produce at Trial be sure to use Section 21102 to call for production of adverse witnesses under control of the opposing
party.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Prepare Direct and Cross Exam of Expected Witnesses make sure that keep
theme and required proof in mind. Less is better.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
Exhibit A
29
Contact List
Name, address, phone number of the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
2)
your client;
opposing counsel;
trial judge;
insurance company personnel, if applicable;
all witnesses;
your private investigator
Pleadings
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Current Complaint
Current Answer & Affirmative Defense(s)
Third Party Complaint
Counterclaims or Third Party Complaints
Answer to Counterclaim or Third Party Complaint(s)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Trial Subpoenas
7)
Exhibit B
30
Plaintiffs Exhibits
No.
Description
Obj.
Exhibit C
31
In
Out
Defendants Exhibits
No.
Description
Obj.
Exhibit D
32
In
Out