RIGHT TO PERFECT TRIAL OR JUST RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL

As I do more trials I consider aspects of my work that leave a deep impression on the way I evolve and work the next case.  I strive to set up my cases in the best way I can given the circumstances.  Those circumstances may be that there is a liability question that needs great attention, or damages are not continuing to accumulate because the client is no longer needing treatment.

My concern is to work with the nuances so that whatever weakness there is in a case, it may be minimized.  What this mindset caused me is enormous stress based on the need to control circumstances.  Once I realized that no trial is ever a perfect trial, but that the only thing we can truly strive for is a fair trial, my level of stress as well as understanding on what to do versus what not to waste energy on becomes more clear by the case.

For one, I no longer waste energy thinking about how to impeach a witness during a deposition.  The whole thing is now about obtaining testimony that may be productive for me at trial. Written discovery is a trench of friction that stops the process from moving forward as fast as it could.  Lawyers fear the unknown and spend enormous time arguing about irrelevant issues if jury trial is the goal. I mean, why try to impeach an expert during discovery if you already know you will do it before the jury?  Doing it during discovery just means the opposing party may simply try to resolve on the cheap.  If they get caught at trial, it's either going to be a sweat settlement or a verdict.

At this point, I make a list of what I need to prove to win, and then I look at my evidence and see if I have everything I need to prove every element or factor needed for a win.  If I have what I need, why waste time and energy arguing over discovery that I do not need?  

When it comes to injured plaintiffs in a negligence action, proof requires a confirmed collision, pictures, testimony that the accident occurred.  Then there must be confirmed injuries which come from the medical records, doctor and client testimony.  Causation of injury can be a tricky one if there low property damage because defendant's like to contest causation of injury by suggesting a logical fallacy by claiming common sense dictates injury could not occur due to a low property low speed accident.  However, the issue can be overcome by use of experts, as well as literature.

Ultimately, a good lawyer should know the rules of evidence extremely well.  These rules of evidence are what makes the difference between having what you need and knowing it, or wasting resources arguing over discovery issues that simply create friction and push the trial date back.  

If you have been the victim of an accident, please do not hesitate to reach us.