Law Commons^™

Privacy And National Politics: Fingerprint And Dna Litigation In Japan And The United States Compared, Dongsheng Zang

Articles

Drawing cases from two related areas of law-fingerprint and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) data-this Article proposes a modified framework, built on the Balkin-Levinson emphasis on national politics: First, national politics understood as partisan rivalry cannot account for what I call doctrinal lock-in in this Article, where I will demonstrate that in different stages of American politics-the Lochner era, the New Deal era, and Civil Rights era-courts across the nation ruled predominantly in favor of public data collectors-state and federal law enforcement in fingerprint cases. From the 1990s, when DNA data became hot targets of law enforcement, the United States Supreme Court …

Frenemies Of The Court: The Many Faces Of Amicus Curiae, Helen A. Anderson

Articles

Ask any lawyer what an "amicus curiae" is, and you will be told that the term means "friend of the court." The term has positive, even warm, connotations. Amicus briefs provide additional information or perspectives to assist courts in deciding issues of public importance. Interest groups, law professors, and politically engaged lawyers are happy to participate in important cases through such briefs. Amicus curiae participation is defended as democratic input into what is otherwise not a democratic branch of government.

Yet, amici curiae—nonparties who are nevertheless advocates, who are not bound by rules of standing and justiciability, or even rules …

Redistricting Litigation And The Delegation Of Democratic Design, Lisa Marshall Manheim

Articles

This Article seeks to reveal how the practice of litigating as redistricting, which has evolved into a form of litigation highly susceptible to procedural manipulation, has created a type of redistricting that grants profound power to those who choose to litigate. In so doing, this Article rejects any understanding of the redistricting process that understands the influence of litigants to be somehow negated or neutralized by the involvement of courts. It recognizes, moreover, that many of the defining features of redistricting litigation–which are, in certain respects, analogous to those characterizing other problematic forms of litigation–nevertheless reflect some of the most …

Revisiting Trial Basics Every Time: A Ritual For Courtroom Success, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

With fewer cases progressing to trial, many attorneys do not have adequate opportunities to practice the skills necessary to be successful in the courtroom. Here the author provides a useful and uncomplicated examination of the basic trial advocacy skills, which should be reviewed each time an attorney prepares for trial. Writing for the busy practicing attorney, the author concisely addresses six key stages of trial: voir dire, opening statement, direct examination, cross-examination, impeachment, and closing argument.

Taking Better Depositions By Thinking "Outside The Box", Maureen A. Howard

Articles

While there are reasons a lawyer may ask questions in a deposition to confirm what she thinks she already knows—nailing down facts for a summary judgment motion, confirming factual and legal theories, perpetuating a witness’s testimony, or facilitating settlement by flexing favorable facts—gathering information the lawyer does not know remains the primary goal of almost every deposition. Despite this, lawyers too often ask questions based on what they already know, limiting the universe of answers and undermining the goal of gathering information.

By the time a lawyer notes depositions, she has already built a “working model” of the case based …

Effective Pre-Trial Motions: Persuading The Judge, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

Victories won in pre-trial motions can significantly affect the direction and outcome of a trial. For this reason, successful trial lawyers prepare for motions with the same thoroughness that they employ for the trial itself. Arguing a motion to a trial judge, however, is different from arguing your case to a jury; to be effective, an advocate needs to be mindful of the difference.

Judges generally resist what they perceive as emotional manipulation, theatrics, or excessive rhetoric. Many judges expect lawyers to cleanly and succinctly argue the facts and the law without employing any appeal to emotion. That being said, …

The Asymmetry Of Duty In Criminal Trial Practice, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

Although the American trial system has been likened to an arena in which mental combatants fight “to the death” (the verdict), each warrior similarly skilled and equally committed to vanquishing the other in a forum with formal rules of engagement enforced by a learned and impartial judge, the role of the criminal prosecutor is qualitatively different than that of other advocates. This is because, unlike any other lawyer, a criminal prosecutor has an affirmative duty to the opposing party.

A lawyer who represents an individual client is duty-bound to advance that client’s interests vigorously within the bounds of the law. …

Opening Statement: Persuading Without Argument, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

A basic rule of trial practice is that a lawyer cannot argue in opening statement. A lawyer who breaks this rule runs the risk of drawing an objection from opposing counsel and having it sustained by the judge. Of course, as with most rules of trial practice, a lawyer can get away with de minimus violations in most cases and wholesale disregard in cases where opposing counsel—whether as a result of inexperience, inattention or trial strategy—doesn’t object. Although simple in concept, lawyers commonly falter in practical application of the “no argument” rule in two ways: 1) failing to understand what …

Mastering Foolproof Witness Control On Cross-Examination, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

In the wonderfully entertaining and instructive video, The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination, the late Irving Younger offered this appraisal of lawyers’ ability to conduct cross-exam: “Most lawyers do it badly all the time, no lawyer does it well all the time, and no lawyer in the early stages of his career does it well at all.” Happily, we’ve come a long way since Younger’s grim 1975 assessment, due to the instruction of maestros like Younger, Terrence McCarthy (McCarthy on Cross-Examination), and Larry Pozner and Roger Dodd (Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques). All too often, however, lawyers …

Closing Argument: Connecting The Dots For The Jury, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

A common error made by unseasoned attorneys when giving closing argument is retelling the “story” of their case. Storytelling is best used in opening statement, not closing argument. By the time the jurors hear closing argument, they are well acquainted with the story, because they have heard two opening statements and all the evidence.

Closing argument, as the name suggests, is instead the time to argue. This means that in addition to revisiting the theme(s) presented in opening statement, a lawyer may use rhetorical questions, draw conclusions and inferences from the evidence, discuss the credibility of the witness, examine the …

Playing Nice: The Dos And Don'ts Of Courtroom Etiquette, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

No matter how brilliant the lawyer, impressive her credentials, thorough her case preparation, or razor-sharp her analytic skills, she risks damaging her case — and her reputation — if she fails to comply with basic courtroom etiquette. There are certain dos and don’ts of courtroom behavior that are understood by seasoned trial lawyers and expected from judges. There are also common courtesies expected by jurors of lawyers who are viewed as professional and credible. A lawyer will undoubtedly learn these behavioral norms in the trenches over time, but she is well advised to have a courtroom etiquette checklist in her …

Liar! Liar! Impeaching A Witness On Cross-Examination, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

There are certain trial moments that can set an advocate’s heart a-flutter. One is the opportunity to show the jury that an adverse witness is not to be trusted. Even better is the chance to expose the witness to be a bald-faced liar.

Welcome to the wonderful world of impeachment. Impeachment is the art of discrediting the witness on cross-examination. There are seven impeachment techniques:

• Bias, interest, and motive

• Contradictory facts

• Prior convictions — FRE 609

• Prior bad acts — FRE 608 (b)

• Prior inconsistent statements — FRE 613

• Bad character for truthfulness — …

Direct Examination: Lawyer As Director, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

A trial lawyer presenting her case in chief through direct examination is somewhat like a film director: the lawyer thoroughly analyzes the case and develops a plan for the most effective way to present the case to the jury to best advance her theme and theory. Just as no script would play out on film the exact same way in the hands of different directors, no case would be presented in exactly the same way by different trial lawyers. Yet there are constants to be found in the steps effective trial lawyers take during their case in chief when presenting …

10 Tips For Getting Jurors To Talk, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

“Jury selection” is a misnomer because lawyers don’t actually get to “select” ideal jurors; they get a limited opportunity to “deselect” the worst prospective jurors. The goal of voir dire is to identify these jurors by uncovering their attitudes, beliefs, opinions, preconceptions, biases, and prejudices. To accomplish this, a lawyer has a difficult task: she must foster an honest, intimate conversation among strangers in a very public, formal environment.

Even honest jurors may give misleading answers during voir dire due to nervousness, inattention, faulty memory, or misunderstanding. The formal courtroom atmosphere can have a chilling effect at odds with the …

A Need For Clarity: Toward A New Standard For Preliminary Injunctions, Lea B. Vaughn

Articles

This Article examines the various standards for preliminary injunctions and demonstrates the ways in which the standards have become confused by irrelevant layers of meaning. Those layers of meaning are analyzed; nonfunctional accretions are discarded, and legitimate modem meanings are developed. The discussion is conducted against a background of assumptions about what makes a good standard, for example, accessibility and comprehensiveness. By modernizing the standard, the parties and the courts will frankly and openly discuss the underlying legal issues and values. This, in turn, should lead to more legitimate decisions.

Under a modernized standard, a court should redress immediate pretrial …