in this case. Therefore, the thoughts and words had to be mine. I contemplated spending time with
the jury, speaking to them about pa- triotism. I could wave the flag and talk about the grandeur and importance of the American jury system until I had them humming The Battle Hymn of the Republic quietly in the background. Or, I could discuss lawyerly concepts like “presumptions,” “burden of proof,” “preponderance of the evidence,” and “reasonable degree of medical certainty.” But neither approach would be me. It would be me playing a politician, or hiding behind a law-school professor persona, but it would not be me try- ing to genuinely share with the other human beings who were sitting in the jury box. Perhaps that was the greatest appeal of the scholarly approach. If the summation failed, if it fell flat, it would not be me who was rejected − it would
be the abstract concepts. To personalize the closing argument would mean to expose myself to personal rejection, and that required a degree of courage I am never certain I can find. While patriotic platitudes and trial-lawyer legalese may technically constitute a summation, I knew that this family, these clients, deserved better than that. And so, the struggle continued. In order to escape the unrelenting
tyranny of the blank screen, I started to write a letter to a good friend. I began by telling him about the case, about my fears and doubts. I tried to explain why I truly believed that the cause was just, and how I genuinely felt about the people who had entrusted me with their legal rights. To my surprise, I saw my summation emerging on the screen before my eyes. The letter had a theme, told a compelling story, used analogy, exposed my true thoughts and feelings,
and most importantly, was in my own voice. Naturally, by the time I completed the letter/summation, I was once again dissatisfied. Given more time, I would have started over again and again. Never- theless, there comes a point when there is no time for further revisions. One must finally go with what they have and hope for the best. I had reached that point.
The Summation Finally I get to talk with you. It’s been
so hard, so awkward passing you in the halls and in the cafeteria without being able to speak with you. I wanted to so badly. For two weeks I wanted to ask you what you thought − what questions you wanted me to ask the witnesses − what evidence you wanted to see. But I couldn’t because the rules of the Court did not allow me. I have to admit that, although I have
Structured Settlements
For Your Client’s Financial Security Introduce Them to Someone With
For Your Client’s Financial Security Introduce Them to Someone With
• • • Gary Blankenship Gary Blankenship •
• Integrity and Trustworthiness 20+ Years of Experience in Maryland
Integrity and Trustworthiness
• Quality and Knowledge Exceeding Expectations
Expectations 1-800-284-4650 Tom Dolny Tom Dolny
20+ Years of Experience in Maryland Quality and Knowledge Exceeding
Spring 2008
Trial Reporter
43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66