Idaho Criminal Defense Blog : Idaho Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Chuck Peterson Law Firm : Civil Rights, Trial, Felonies, Assaut, DUI : Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Idaho

 When I was at the Trial Lawyers College I met Daniel Rodriguez - a mild mannered civil rights lawyer from Bakersfield CA. He showed me there that he was simply one of the greatest story tellers in the class and undoubtedly one of the great trial lawyers in the country. He has a home town style that quickly captivates those around him. 

He also just won the biggest verdict in California history for a drunk driving case - $31 million. 

So how did he do it? Here are a couple things that made his case so compelling: 

First - his clients had real damages. His primary client had brain damage and will need constant care for the rest of her life. So there were huge sums of money that will be needed to keep 19-year old Rosie Landros alive. Real damages make a real difference. So often we have potential cases where people are hurt, but seldom are they as severely hurt as the victim here.

Second - there was real liability. The driver of the other car had pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). When liability is established, the only question is how much the victim is entitled to for damages and there is no issue of contributory negligence. 

Third - THERE ARE NO LIMITS FOR NONECONOMIC DAMAGES IN CALIFORNIA - or Wyoming, or Montana, or Texas or a whole bunch of other states. So pain and suffering has real value in those states. In Idaho the insurance companies convinced our state legislature that juries award too much money for pain and suffering, so WE HAVE A $250,000 limit or cap on noneconomic loss. Our pain is not worth as much as the pain suffered in neighboring states. 

And those same legislators clamor for tort reform while taking money from those insurance companies and their lackies.  

Here's an idea - let's throw them all out of office and start over. Then we the people can restore to us the same rights we would have if we were injured in a neighboring state.

Want to read more about this case? Check out the newspaper account here. And congrats Daniel. From a class of pretty good lawyers at Trial Lawyers College, you again showed us that you are the King!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 I haven't written lately about the Trial Lawyers College - proud to say I am a graduate - but talking to one of my classmates reminded me of the methods taught there.  Daniel Rodriguez was a classmate, and he and I are headed for trial in a personal injury case in Bakersfield in September. More recently he successfully settled a civil rights case on behalf of the survivors of a man beaten to death in jail. The County decided (WISELY)  to settle the case rather than face a potential $20 - 25 million verdict.  A news story about the settlement details how Daniel's clients received $6 million from the county.

What is so different about the methods taught at Thunderhead Ranch and the Trial Lawyers College?  First - the focus is on the story. Every case is about the story, not the lawyers.  So great trial lawyers have to be great story tellers, and Rodriguez is a master of telling the story.  Second - TLC lawyers use techniques that focus on getting the jury into the scenes of that story.  The method is called Psychodrama - and the staff at TLC are masters in its use at trial.  There is much more about TLC method that is different, but that is for another day.  If you want to learn more go to other posts here under the category Trial Lawyers College, or go to Gerry Spence's website.

I have posted before why most civil rights cases go nowhere - but not always.  Daniel's case is a good example of what a great lawyer can do with a real deprivation of civil rights.  I will update you on in September on the case he and I will try in Bakersfield.  Can't wait to work with him on a truly great case in California.

Wonder if you have a civil rights case that has merit?  Send me a contact sheet or give us a call.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Congrats to my brothers and TLC Warriors on their victory in Houston in a civil rights case that pitted Kent Spence and Rafe Foreman against Harris County Sheriff's Office and its deputies. After just four hours deliberations, the jury awarded the estate of Joel Casy $600,000 and $2.4 million to his mother.  The Houston Chronicle reported:

Casey’s death was ruled a homicide. An autopsy found the 52-year-old man died of psychotic delirium with physical restraint associated with heart disease.

He also suffered fractures to his seventh cervical vertebrae and the left horn of his thyroid cartilage, believed to have occurred when one deputy dropped a knee on Casey’s neck and pulled Casey’s head back, said the dead man’s attorney, Kent Spence.

You can read more about this case here .  Sometimes juries get it right.  Casey had complied with officers who showed up at his house to arrest him on a mental health warrant.  When he complained about the pain one of the handcuffs was causing him, Mr. Casey (a 52 year old man who suffered from schizophrenia) was taken to the ground and an officer put a knee in his back while pulling his head by the hair.  

Look folks - this stuff ain't rocket science.  Simply treat others like you would expect to be treated. There was no need for Mr. Casey to have died here, and a jury said so.  Police misconduct cases are tough, and I cannot think of any local cases in recent times that have resulted in a favorable verdict, but it can happen (remember Ruby Ridge!).  If you think you have a case - consult an attorney who can help you level the playing field. 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

So here is a post about being a lawyer - not about crimes.

This weekend I will be serving as a mentor for the United States District Court trial skills program. Basically I will help provide whatever benefit I may have gained over the past twenty-seven years in the courtroom to lawyers who have less time there.  Some will not have any real time in court, and many will never have picked a jury. So tell me about picking a jury - my own daughter / prosecutor asked me recently.  Jury picking is a tricky thing.  Last summer at the Trial Lawyer's College we spent a fair amount of time with Gerry Spence learning his "method" of sorting out who stays and who leaves. At the simplest level, nobody picks a jury. You pick the people you do not trust - cannot trust, and pick them to leave.  The first step is to remember that you want to include the jurors on your "team."  The key is to identify open minded jurors, and get them to gain confidence in you.  If they associate with you and your case and your client, they are more likely to reject the other side in the case. So we start out by being honest with potential jurors about the case.  We tell them about the warts (problems) - and as Gerry says - show them are own warts.  

I gave an example of this last summer from a case I won in which my client, an Iranian woman, was accused of defrauding the government's medicaid system. You can read about that case here. I told the jurors that I was afraid I harbored prejudices against Iranians and that might hurt my own client's case.  My own prejudices likely go back to the capture of Americans by the Shah's supporters.  I remember seeing them paraded through the streets and thinking how unfair it was that these Americans were held by terrorists while my government did nothing.  My feelings were real, so I told the jury about them.  They then talked to me about their own prejudices - many were willing to discuss this because I had.  You know the drill - you show me yours and I'll show you mine.  Nothing brings jurors closer than that kind of "sharing."  Bottom line - jury picking is tricky stuff, and almost nobody (including me most days) does a very good job of it. But if you need to do this and are worried about how to - call me - I love to help other lawyers with this stuff.  And pick up a copy of Spence's "Win Your Case."  Truthfully, the stuff in that book can help you win your case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

OK - back from TLC and re-entry is a bit troubling, but a trial is just the thing to check out those skills.  Like putting the witness back in the scene and having him or her take you through, in first person, what they see.  So today I had to try a little misdemeanor case.  Two 50 year old guys complained mightily to the police that my 70 year old client had "battered" them at a bar.  The real deal was their damages.  That's right - around $5000 worth of medical tests to determine that they had no real injuries, save their pride.  So without any offer to plead the case to something reasonable - like disturbing the peace - we rolled the dice.  Now even a goofy trial like this takes time to prepare for and time to try.  Start your clocks at around 7:00 am this morning, and shut them off around 7:30 pm.  In the end the jury saw it our way.  Not Guilty.  There are no two better words to hear when forced to trial on some goofy, miserable, meandering river of a misdemeanor jury trial.  NOT GUILTY.  BUT how you may ask?  Client admitted that he hit one of the gentlemen on the chin.  Client also admitted that he moved toward gentleman number two and two fell down.  So what about it?  TLC.  Just some good easy listening to their testimony and the resulting cross in which number one admitted he moved toward Defendant "and then Defendant hit me."  That "movement" ultimately looked like number one wanted to attack my client.  And two - well he simply told a way different story, under oath, than had number one.  He impeached number one on key points.  And the jurors heads nodded, and their eyes rolled, and it was clear they did not believe either number one or two.  Just listen ... and you will be surprised what you hear in court.  So maybe my next blog will come sooner - I know it will as I am now working on a very nice CRIME VICTIM'S CASE.  Civil complaint to follow - within a week or so.  But tonight I am thinking about today's victory.  If you face the state in a criminal case, better be ready to ride the waves.  When they stop coming in big sets, you may hear that jury say NOT GUILTY.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the office today and again thinking about what I learned and how it will help my clients. I just was sent a copy of a newspaper story on the Ruby Ridge case. Gerry Spence and I tried this case fifteen years ago. Here is how they described my cross-examination technique then: "Spence's second is Chuck Peterson, who riddles hostile witnesses with barrages of questions and telegraphs his message to jurors with a blend of smirks and rolled eyes. In this case, the lawyers know the meek will inherit nothing." What I have since learned is that "soft cross" is better than the standard "hard cross" if you want the jury to like you. Kill them with kindness. Tell your story but don't kill the witness. Intuitively most cross-examination is directed at the witness in anger, leading you to abandon the story. But the key to every case is the story, not the ability of the lawyer to slice and dice a lying witness. I have long ago returned to the side of the meek, believing that the story is almost always more important than the denials. And now, with a month of working on TLC techniques, I can't wait to "soft cross" the next informant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

So I am back from TLC - didn't have time to post last week and I am so tired tonight I can hardly even think about all that I learned. I will stand by what I said a couple weeks ago, TLC can change your life. It can change your practice. It can help you win cases and it can help you connect with other lawyers - some 800 or so have graduated from TLC - and take your trial skills to another level. Strangely enough, it all starts with psycho-drama at TLC. Psycho-drama? Think of it as a way of exploring the story of your case. By re-living the event (like the shootout that forms the basis of your assault case), you can get to all the feelings the event created, and figure out how to sell your story during direct. Still, psych-drama is not enough in itself to change your case. It is just the beginning. Yesterday my TLC class went through the graduation ceremonies at the ranch. Today we scattered to our home states and tomorrow some of us will go back to our offices and handle clients and cases and bills - you get the picture. Work. Not techniques taught in a barn in Wyoming, but real cases, with real clients and real issues to handle. Today I am too tired to do that. But tomorrow - I am really looking forward to tomorrow. And really looking forward to going to court again. Getting to the story, and developing our case. Got a case? Let's talk.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

So I admit it, I was wrong. I do want my life changed and this is just the place to do it. After only a week of recharging my batteries at Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College, I have a new respect for psycho dramatic techniques and for development of the story. Both have played prominent roles these past days. Psycho drama is a means of re-living the story that brought the client to you. It literally involves a re-enactment of the events. The process has great application in criminal cases because there are clear, defined scenes that can be explored with clients and witnesses. Multiple "views" of the events can be examined from their different perspectives. I have used this process before in both civil and criminal cases, and frequently have used it with a focus group before trial. TLC's incredible staff is adding new tools for me to use as I get ready for trial.

Every case is really just a story - and every story is just a series of scenes. But in what order should the story be told? Who should tell the story and how? What scenes should the jury "see?" And how do we get the jurors in our cases to help our clients? We have been exploring all of this and more. Years ago I started using story and theme to build the case, from voir dire to closing. "Just tell your story!" Spence is prone to yell. And he is right. We are "story people." Our histories as humans have been told in story form. When great teachers through history have wanted to make a special point they have always relied upon story to engage and hold their audience. So this is not new for me - but working on story development and building on themes developed in psycho dramas will certainly become more focussed after TLC.

Last night I heard Paul Luvera use the term "Reptilian Brain" as he spoke about how he recently won a $40 million verdict for a worthy client in Everette. The term is one I read recently in John Medina's book, Brain Rules. To get a sense about how we think and the role our three (that's right - 3) brains play in our own personal survival, check out his website and buy his book at www.brainrulesbook.com.   The book is fascinating reading, and it will really get you thinking.  Luvera has keyed into something that is critical to understanding jurors here - and we need to understand how jurors think as we build our story and develop our case.  Tapping into it the Reptilian brain can mean the difference between winning and losing at trial.  Because this stuff has such power, I do not plan to share now, but call me in August or join in the discussion then, after I get back to Boise from TLC.

Time to get back to work - we have the day off and I am in Jackson Hole with some classmates.  I cannot wait to put this stuff to work and win your case!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

They say attending the Trial Lawyers College can change your life.  I'm not sure I want my life changed, but I am looking forward to spending the next three weeks at Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College, in the remote mountains of Wyoming.  I'll be there with 48 other lawyers, chosen from across the US.  The whole thing sounds daunting but exciting at the same time.  Spence and others will attempt to remake us in our own image - that's right - our image, not theirs.  The truth is, no lawyer can successfully be anyone other than him/herself.  Attempting to imitate anyone else would simply not work because jurors see through that type of ruse.  As I tell jurors, I am just a little guy in baggie pants.  Just a "ham & egger," catching cases that seem mundane to some, but case that are huge to the folks involved.  So off I go to learn from great teachers - and to teach a little myself.  I will share the stuff I have learned that works, and get ideas for cases that are coming up soon.  Over the next three weeks I will break away from Thunderhead Ranch (no cattle, no round-ups, no TV, no cell phones) and post updates about my experience.  If you have been wondering what happens there, stay tuned.  I can't share the secret handshake, but I will share what I learn about the process.  After 25 years of doing this stuff, a little refreshing seems in order.  And maybe you will decide that you should attend too. 

Speaking of process - I was reminded today of an article that appeared in Litigation magazine in 2006, authored by a Federal Magistrate Judge I left on a racketeering jury.  Yes, I left him on a jury.  Other lawyers called me as the trial dragged on, mostly wondering what kind of fool would leave a sitting judge on a jury.  As it turned out - the kind of fool who trusts the man, and does not fear the robe.  The article is entitled A Judge On The Jury and it records Judge Larry Boyle's observations about the role of the lawyers at trial.  The trial went on for ten weeks, and the indictment alleged over 150 crimes ("predicate acts" in RICO lingo).  In the end, the jury acquitted on all but 5 of the predicate acts.  It hung on those 5, unable to reach a unanimous finding.  More important than the result is Judge Boyle's observations on how jurors watch what we do as lawyers.  His article should be read by every lawyer and client before going to trial.  Jurors watch the client and the lawyers, but in the end it is the evidence - the testimony and the exhibits - that drive the cart.  That could be good or bad news depending on your case.  If you have a minute read the article.  No more minutes for me.  Gotta pack for TLC.  Maybe I can figure out how those 5 predicate acts got away.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks