Trial Advocacy class ended last night and it ended with a bang, and the bang came out of the gun fired by fictitious criminal defendant Merle Rausch, who Co-counselor Elloitt Reibman and I had been assigned to represent. Elliott and I had been preparing, for weeks, to defend Rausch on the grounds of self-defense.

(That’s a photo of Elliott and me at Counsel Table, taken right before the judge [who is a real judge] told us that we weren’t allowed to take photos in the courtroom.)

Merle Rausch, we argued, feared for his life because the week before the “incident” occurred—we called it an “incident,” not a “shooting”—the now-dead guy (who was a foot taller than Raush) grabbed him by the arm and threatened him.

(That photo shows a reenactment of the in-court reenactment of the arm grab, as witnessed by a bar patron.)

The State claimed that the now-dead guy was ten away from Raush and standing upright when Rausch fired the gun.

We claimed that the now-dead guy was just three feet away from Rausch and lunging at him when Rausch fired the gun.

The biggest problem for the State was the trajectory of the bullet, as documented in the Medical Examiner’s Report. The bullet entered next to the now-dead guy’s nipple and it exited right above his waist. In other words, it traveled downward.

During Closing, I argued that the trajectory of the bullet suggested one of two things:

1) that the now-dead guy was lunging (i.e., at a forward angle) when Rausch fired the gun

or

2) that Rausch had rocket powered shoes that allowed him to get high enough such that when he fired the gun, the bullet traveled the trajectory it did travel.

Yes, the diagram was silly, but silliness was the whole point. I wanted the jury—even though we didn’t really have a jury—to say, “That’s ridiculous!” when they heard me say “rocket powered shoes,” and then I wanted them to realize that the real ridiculous thing was the State’s claim that the now-dead guy wasn’t lunging at Rausch when Rausch fired the gun.

After the trial was done, one of the other side’s witnesses came up to me and told me that she thought the diagram was “WAY out of place.”

Do you think the same?

Technorati Tags: Courtroom, Final Exam, Rausch, Trial Strategy, Trial Law

Share This

In “Letters to a Yong Lawyer,” Alan Dershowitz tells the story of how Satan offers a law student a free look at hell:

“The associate sees beautiful, happy people, eating well and having fun, and so he becomes a sinner. When he finally dies and goes to Hell permanently, it’s a very different place with fire and misery. He complains to the Devil reminding him of what he had previously been shown. The Devil replies, “That was our summer associates program.”

This summer, some of my classmates will head to New York, where hundred-lawyer law firms will pay them $2,000/week to eat fancy dinners and attend Yankees games.

Also this summer, the great state of Illinois will pay me exactly no dollars to work at the Cook County Traffic Court.

I actually couldn’t be more excited about it, and here is why:

My classmates who, after graduation, go on to work at big law firms will spend six hours a day on westlaw.com doing legal research, and another eight hours a day writing memorandums on what they just researched. They’ll be paid heavily to do so, but won’t have any time to spend or enjoy their money. They’ll never meet with a client, never have a case to call their own, and never actually go to court. They won’t be lawyers so much as professional legal research bitches.

I, on the other hand, will not only get to go to court this summer, I’ll be trying cases. Myself. The great State of Illinois has a system whereby second year law students can try cases—no diploma or bar exam necessary!—with what’s called a “7-11 License.” I’m hoping the experience I get with my 7-11 License will be worth twice as much as whatever my highest-paid classmate will get this summer. In other words, I’m hoping it will be worth fifty thousand bucks. Is that realistic?

Technorati Tags: Summer Job, Summer Associate, Summer Associate Position, Traffic Court, Big Law Firm, westlaw.com

Share This

Congratulations to Counselor Dodger!

Here is your official congratulatory e-mail from my Product Liability Professor Bruce Ottley:

After read the entries, I think the best one was from “Dodger” on March 14th, 2007 at 4:40 am that said: “Yuck! Do NOT drink this, it will hurt you!”

The reason is that we are trying to write a warning that will get the attention of a seven year old. I don’t think a warning that said the product would “kill you” would really get the meaning across to a seven year old.

However, every seven year old understands the meaning of “yuck” and the fact that something can “hurt” them. The warning is written in the language of its target: a seven year old. I cannot overstate the importance of targeting the warning to the audience.

I think “Dodger” has a future as an attorney helping companies create product labels that convey the essence of the risk. I wish him/her the best of luck.

Product Liability Professor Bruce L. Ottley

Technorati Tags: Product Liability, Contest, Lawyer Contest

Share This