TV - Biomechanics Training Videos

** TRAINING VIDEOS** *The Case Framing Mindset* Trial Lawyer Nation Host: Michael Cowen; Resource speaker: Mark Mandell Case Framing Method - what are we supposed to be doing as plaintiff's lawyer All he knew was HARDWORK. He survived through intuition. What we should suppose to do vs. what we...

** TRAINING VIDEOS** *The Case Framing Mindset* Trial Lawyer Nation Host: Michael Cowen; Resource speaker: Mark Mandell Case Framing Method - what are we supposed to be doing as plaintiff's lawyer All he knew was HARDWORK. He survived through intuition. What we should suppose to do vs. what we are conditioned to do, so he innovated and experimented over his 45 years of experience - Circle of proof, choice theory, need for protection, etc - He found holes, there is validity but wasnt complete - So he developed case framing which he hasnt seen holes, and others applied and had fantastic results - One lawyer commented: "it;s more than a model, it's mindset' - It affects everything he does. Its a structure within which everything (pre-trial and trial) fits. - "Every single thing you present at trial, everything, needs to be framed and sequenced in a way that focuses the jurors on the points you most want to make." - Since a case is decided based on what it's focused on. - Most common mistake by PL lawyers: they focus too much time and energy trying to disprove the case of the defense rather not focusing on their case. - Avoid becoming angry, otherwise you become the issue. As opposed to the thing that you want the jury to get angry about. You take away their power to get angry. - If you maintain your cool, you give the jury the ability to get angry and that's what you want exactly. 🙂 What is a case frame? - Everything should be framed at trial.  - 3 building blocks 1. Case frames 1. The heart and soul of the case  1. The summary, fundamental meaning of your case 1. Moves the jury to action 1. 2 qualities: specific and related to the facts of the case AND its got to be a principle or understanding that has a universal application "Powerful one-lliner" e. OJ simpson case - "wrongful accusation" as the principle no matter how banal it is 2. I just cant get over issues 1. Good for the defense, bad for the prosecution 1. This defines the case frame 1. The reach and stike a core in the juror 1. Like a 'theme' (but he does not like the word) - there must be a *feel* to it, so the 'i just cant get over issue' is the issue that if a jury cant get over it is going to guide their verdict 1. Ex. pharmacist selling expired medications 1. 78 yr old man with a lot of ailments and run over mother and daughter so he lied to his doctor 1. Disfigurement, loneliness 1. Can be a question without an answer (eg would you do it over again?) 1. Can be almost anything, events or exhibits 1. ex of defense cant get over issues -  plaintiff is a smoker, a pedophile 1. Using words like 'vote for verdict' rather than 'award damages' = jury empowerment 1. Stress the importance of what the jury is doing 1. Ways to overcome bad i cant get over issues 1. Refute directly 1. Substitute a more powerful belief that negates them (or overwhelms them) 1. You don\'t need to destroy all bad issues but to slow them down and allow your good cant get over issues fill the court to effect 1. Impt: "bond" = connect the def wrongdoing to the harm that your client has sustained (for DW) 1. Like chunking - combining two separate facts and form a new independent fact 3. Echoes  1. 2 functions - support a good cant get over issues or overcome a bad i cant get over you 1. 4 categories - either people, documents,7 events, ideas, exhibits that cause to reverberate the issue to the jurors 1. Why we need them? To sustain attention, need for constant reverberation 1. Ex, dramshop case against the casino 1. Drunk defendant was visibly drunk at the crash site 1. Police report (which supported the def as drunk), good samaritan witness 1. Proximity to the casino (who served him the drinks or should not have let him leave) Other insights: - Presenting the witnesses not exactly in chronological order. But you should start every examination with a key cant get over issue - Start your opening and closing statement with your best key cant get over issue. For the closing, start with the overall case framing first then go to the key issue. Disclose for the first time the entirety of the overall case frame. Not in the opening statement. Why?  - What would be better to present as something new and good to tip the scales in your favor than the heart and soul of your case - that which defines the essential principle in your case or your overall caseframe. - Second reason: defense cannot attack what they dont know - You really cannot know because things change throughout trial (evidence might not be accepted or so), so the only way you can definitevely know your overall case frame should be after everyone rests and no more evidence comes in. see what the collective meaning is.  - Jurors make their mind up in deliberations (not after the opening statement) - Sequencing is important. "You should almost never start it chronologically." he means start with the most important issue (which is almost never the chronological event) like starting at the crash rather than at the house of plaintiff - Chronology is intuitive to us, but the way we live our life has nothing to do with the presentation sequence at trial= very important and most common mistake - Sequencing matters - Using questions at the closing statement. As people do not want to be told what to do. They resist it. Same with jurors. Tell them what to think about. Let them know what you want them to think about. So in asking questions, you let the jurors think about the questions and answer them. And they own their answers. It's their pride. What are anchors? It is a comparison standard on liability issues. - People gauge things by other events. Ex. finding evidence from similar or past incidents or cases, ie a doctor's past/track record, ex. Gauging the conduct of a lifeguard, assessed against  ymca's lifeguard manual, ex. Conduct of an ER doctor, anchor it using the ER policy of the hospital to make a judgment. - The power of anchors is its unconscious effect, you are not even aware that you're responding to them. Ex.sale, people are drawn to it even though the original price and the anchor price are inflated, but you think you are getting a deal (unconscious thought) Ex. a textbook is an anchor, say an illustration of an incision for a tarsal tunnel surgery but the one on client is longer, jury would use that anchor as a comparison - Anchors are not paid, unlike expert witnesses ("paid opinion"). His dram shop-casino case: - Overall frame - people do their jobs (for casino not to serve drinks to 18yo below) - Secondary frames: - Profit over safety - That casino let the kids walk out that night, turning a blind eye - Big system failure - Verdict: 13.250M with 21.5M interest