All posts tagged: Trial Advocacy

Top Gun XI Trial Advocacy Competition | A Q&A with Eric Love LAW ’20 and Lauren Doig LAW ’21

Published by , and

The below is excerpted from conversation held about a week after Eric Love competed in the Top Gun XI Trial Advocacy competition. Eric was supported by his second chair, Lauren Doig, and his coach, Professor Sara Jacobson. Top Gun is a unique tournament, giving only 24 hours to prepare before a lone advocate tries both the plaintiff and defense side of the case. This competition was also unique because it was the first full mock trial tournament conducted wholly online. It was conducted one week after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis as a weekend of protests and unrest swept the country. Eric and Lauren won the professionalism award for the tournament for the issues they faced during the final round. Eric, Lauren, and Professor Jacobson were working out of a rented apartment suite on the 7th floor at 15th and Chestnut. Eric’s final round began about 4pm. He and Lauren were unaware that blocks away, civil protest had turned to civil unrest at Philadelphia’s City Hall and that looting, small fires, and …

A Day at the High Court of Uganda

Published by

For most of this program, I am the sole lecturer, and our days are taken up with typical Trial Advocacy coursework – directs and crosses; openings and closings; basic trial skills; depositions and mediation.  This past Thursday morning, however, the program brought in a guest speaker to speak about technological developments related to African courts.  While I’m sure I could have learned a great deal from the speaker, I used this as an opportunity to sneak off to the Ugandan High Court. The High Court building is surrounded by a high, guarded gate and barbed wire, but is open to the public nonetheless.  The High Court serves as the trial court level for significant criminal cases in Kampala, the Ugandan capital.  Lesser criminal offences start off in magistrate courts elsewhere.  I am told the High Court hears appeals as well. Still, given that the population of Kampala is a little larger than Philadelphia, the building struck me as small.  As near as I could find, there were only 6 courtrooms, and only one of them …

Commentary: Roof Should Not Have Been Allowed to Represent Himself

Published by

The return of death sentences by the jury was inevitable in the case of Dylann Roof, who was on trial for killing nine black churchgoers during a Bible study in Charleston, S.C. But no one – fan or foe of capital punishment – should take comfort in how this came about; and an understanding of core Eighth Amendment values should make clear that the process and resulting sentence are unconstitutional. What went wrong first was the decision to permit Roof to self-represent. This flowed from a basic principle of autonomy – just as individuals have the right to the assistance of counsel, so too do they have the right to go it alone or, as some courts have put it, to be the captain of one’s ship. However, nearly a decade ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Sixth Amendment, “a right of self-representation at trial will not ‘affirm the dignity’ of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel. . .” Placing an unskilled …

Clouds

Seven Steps to (Hearsay) Heaven

Published by

The great jazz trumpeter Miles Davis recorded his classic Seven Steps to Heaven in 1963, with no explanation as to why this was the number of steps needed to ascend. He just laid down a seven beat, seven note structure and the music flew. Well, perhaps there are an equal number of steps to “hearsay heaven,” that place lawyers want and need to ascend to when proffering or confronting hearsay evidence. Yet virtually no attorney follows all of them, focusing either on admissibility or exclusion without regard to content, effective use or minimization should the proof be allowed. So this guide will offer the steps necessary to completely address hearsay in the courtroom. Step 1 – Is there an assertion by a human? The first reminder here is that hearsay comes from humans, so barking alerts by a drug dog, or computer printouts of telephone records are not covered by the rule. And what is an assertion? In effect, it is a factual declaration, a sentence that could be restated with the words “it is true …

Man Yelling in Microphone

Yell, Compel, or Soft-Sell: How Blatant Must Cross-Examination Be?

Published by

Among Irving Younger’s commandments were the well-known dictates of “be brief” and “save the ultimate point of your cross for summation.” The latter was the model for an eyewitness cross-examination at a recent training on litigating mistaken identification cases, but when we polled the mock jury one of its members – discussing the cross – said “I had no idea what the lawyer was doing or what his purpose was.” It was only one juror, and others ‘got it,’ but the experience gave me pause. The question was, and remains – is it better to make your points and leave the rest for closing; or must we re-examine Younger’s proscription and ‘push’ the point more explicitly? Let me first present the cross as delivered and then the analysis. The cross was designed to make three essential points: that the witness had barely any time to view the perpetrator (and was looking at the gun rather than the robber’s face); that police ‘bad practices’ created the false memory; and that the accused did not fit the …

Reading a Story

Learning From Mistakes: Failing to Story Tell in a Defense Opening

Published by

A successful opening statement: Draws in the listener from the first sentences Narrates facts into a story-board or framework that the audience – judge or jury – is familiar and comfortable with Tells that story with less attention to finite details and more to ensuring that the gist is grasped Is persuasive without becoming argumentative Strikes an emotionally resonant chord Leaves the listener desirous of and receptive to confirmation as the evidence unfolds The dilemma is for the defense lawyer, he/she who opens second. If the moving party has indeed set the stage with a compelling narration, the defense must quickly move the listener to a new narrative, a story at least as compelling, familiar and morally satisfying. If this does not occur, there is only one framework and one set of expectations. One author has described this as having and setting a “hook,” much as in fishing: An ordinary opening statement relies upon each juror to supply the motivation to actively listen. A hook is a story device that functions in three important ways: …

Juvenile Justice

Juveniles to Appeal Life Sentences Following Ruling

Featuring

Professor Sara Jacobson is quoted in this article by The Temple News on juveniles in Philadelphia who will appeal life sentences in light of the recent US Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. Jacobson notes that some of the legislation issues still need to be worked out, and comments on why not all juveniles will get a second chance at freedom in light of the decision. Read the Full Story