Lessons from Trial — Less is More
You know, every time I get into court, I learn something new, or at least have a lesson reinforced. I tried a case last week in federal court, and it became more clear to me than ever that brevity is crucial. Judges and juries have little patience for repetitive questioning, cumulative evidence, and the investigation of irrelevant issues. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that judges (who often profess to want things done quickly and cleanly, but then refuse to limit irrelevant or cumulative evidence) will take the risk of preventing a particular piece of evidence. But at the very least, less is more, and the more extraneous baggage can be pared from what’s presented, the better.
The corollaries to this are two. First, preparation is crucial. The time spent in considering the elements of the claim and the specific evidence required to prove (or nullify) those elements is always well spent. As a young lawyer, my rule of thumb was that when I was more exhausted than scared, I was ready for trial. Since then, I’ve luckily gained more insight into how much is enough, and how to know when I’m there.
The second corollary is to trust your instincts. Trials, like the rest of the law, are art, not science. You should feel when enough is enough, and you should understand what it is you need to prove, and what evidence will get you there. The more time you spend considering such things, the more you’ll understand exactly what testimony and evidence you need.
I love what I do — trials are one of the best parts of this job. If anyone who reads this has comments, I’d love to hear how you prepare, and what your thoughts are on deciding what evidence you have to use, and what you can leave out.
