Clint Townson, PhD’s Post

I recently heard a judge say that he doesn’t see why attorney conducted voir dire is necessary.   I was taken aback, but sadly not surprised.   In most states, lawyers are entitled to conduct an inquiry of the potential jurors to evaluate whether they can be fair and unbiased regarding the issues, party and law in the case.   The process is called voir dire, which literally means “to speak the truth”.   We ask jurors to speak the truth about core issues in the case in order to understand whether bias exists.   Both sides should want to know that the system favors fairness.   The court should desire a jury who does not prejudge the facts of a case based on prior experiences.   In an effort to promote efficiency, courts often try to pare back the jury selection process.   It doesn’t matter that parties wait years to get a jury trial and are only given a short time to empanel a fair, impartial jury.   No juror should sit in judgment who cannot be fair.   How does one know whether a juror can be fair if we don’t hear from them?   Are we expected to guess?   Jury selection (e.g. voir dire) is amongst the most important parts of a trial and sometimes, we will never know whether we’re starting on a level playing field.

Fascinating article out today in the Texas Law Review by my good friend David Hutchison on how modern standing doctrine squares with the Texas constitution’s original meaning: https://lnkd.in/gyKX5wD2

Communication design in the legal (paperwork) space! 🎉 See the journal article: https://lnkd.in/gbvb4mKN Congrats, Karen Schriver!!

The DRI Center for Law and Public Policy recently joined, at the request of its affiliated state defense organizations, two amicus curiae briefs: one to the Supreme Court of Missouri and one to the Supreme Court of Illinois. In Lange v. GMT Auto Sales, Inc., the Center joined the brief of the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers (MODL) in support of the respondent’s position that the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, erroneously held that defendant waived its right to arbitration by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that pursuing a motion to dismiss before moving to compel arbitration not only does not waive arbitration rights, but also serves judicial economy and the interests of the parties by resolving certain threshold questions before arbitration. In Piasa Armory LLC v. Raoul, the Center joined the brief of the Illinois Defense Counsel (IDC) in support of the continued viability of the intrastate forum non conveniens doctrine, which is fundamental to the rights of defendants and the handling of lawsuits in Illinois, and that abandoning that doctrine would result in a concentration of cases in a select few Illinois counties, overwhelming those courts and burdening local juries with deciding controversies that have little, if any, practical connection to those counties. The Center was pleased to lend its support in these important matters. Read more here: https://bit.ly/4fDcBUF. #DRICommunity #DRILawyer #DRITheCenter #PublicPolicy #Legislation #Advocacy #Law The Center provides the most effective voice for the defense bar in the discussion of substantive law, judicial process, constitutional issues, and the integrity of the civil justice system at both the national and state levels.

Here’s how to make progress in the judicial system. If this can be done in the courts, then think how far tribunals can go. Great work here!

Creating a trial bundle takes organisation, time, and attention to detail, but getting it right is worth it. Explore common questions about court bundles and issues to look out for in this article: https://opus2.co/3QuIt3h

If you try cases, you know that jury instructions (and jury selection) are the ballgame. Get these things right, you have improved your chances; neglect them, you will fail. Today, the #TenthCircuit issued an opinion about *when* jury instructions should be read to the jury. Apparently, some judges in the District of Kansas have decided to read ALL the principal instructions after the jury is selected and before opening statements to give them a "road map" of the case. And, at issue in the case attached below, the judge DOES NOT read the full instructions ever again. To me, I absolutely hate this practice. First, jury instructions change based on the evidence that actually comes in as well as the charges that remain after the Government's case-in-chief. Second, I can't believe jurors really recall all the major instructions days (or weeks) after they are read. Third, jury instructions and closing arguments go hand-in-hand to me. I could go on and on. IDK. This approach seems like a real bad idea to me. Thoughts? #juryinstructions #appellateLinkedIn #criminaldefense #trialpractice #closingargument #legalwriting

Michael Blasie thanks for sharing that my revision of a Michigan State Summons appears in the latest Michigan Bar Journal. https://lnkd.in/ehK4aApb Thanks Joe Kimble! As you know, I've had requests to post the "before" and "after" to give people a closer look at where this project for the Kimble Center for Legal Drafting started. We hope the updated form will be adopted at some point. #plainlanguage #legaldesign #informationdesign #accesstojustice