Killer Cross Examination

If Steve Austin was the $6,000,000 Man, Detroit Trial Lawyer John Marko is the $11,670,128.33 Man.  Want to know why? Watch this episode of the Killer Cross Examination Podcast in which the host of the podcast, Neil Rockind aka “The Rockweiler”, goes one on one with Marko.    John Marko is prodigious trial lawyer having worked with some of the top trial lawyers in Michigan and across the country.  He has worked with Ven Johnson, Geoffrey Fieger and teaches trial skills and trial tactics at Trial Lawyers University (TLU) alongside other great trial lawyers, Rex Parris, Brian Panish, Ben Crump, Zoe Littlepage, Keith Mitnick, Nick Fowler, Roger Dodd and more.  In case you can’t tell, Marko lives, eats and breathes trial work and jury trials and it shows … Marko has obtained some of the largest verdicts on behalf of plaintiff’s and injured parties in Michigan.  The numbers are staggering:  $20,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $11,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 And so on …   On this episode of the podcast, learn about his origins, how he approaches jury trials, his approach to voir dire and jury selection and how he approaches cross examination including the cross examination of expert witnesses hired by the other side and find out why we’ve dubbed him, the $11,670,128.33 Man.  ****************************************  About Neil Rockind - Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer, appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discusses popular trials and cases and current events with other top lawyers around the country. Rockind has won just about every award imaginable, has represented athletes, celebrities, musicians, posters and has obtained acquittals in all varieties of cases. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.    *****************************************  Fair Use Doctrine  The contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.  This, in our view, is fair use  pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material.  To the extent the videos capture images or likenesses, we do not own the rights to those images, likenesses, etc and only use them pursuant to the fair use doctrine.  All other rights are reserved.  #crossexamination #civilrights #truecrime

Some lawyers were meant to handle high stakes, high pressure cases.  And then there is John Phillips, the legendary Florida lawyer.  He takes on the toughest, most high pressure cases imaginable, e.g., litigation on behalf of Omarosa Manigault (from the Apprentice TV Show and who worked for the 45th President Donald Trump) against former President Trump, representing Abigail Disney (the heir to the Disney empire), defending rappers and even defending The Tiger King aka Joe Exotic and appearing on the Netflix series about Joe Exotic to name just a few.  Phillips is much more than the sum of those high profile cases however.  A board certified personal injury injury with record-breaking verdicts, he is also a son of the Deep South, grew up aware of prejudices and racial bias and has spent his career fighting those injustices.  His work as a civil rights trial lawyer is the stuff of legends — he fights regularly on behalf of those who have been the victims of police abuse and excessive force.  Catch his Ted Talk on the subject in which he describes his passion and the risks that he takes to prosecute cases against police officers who have abused his clients. When we were interviewing he was gearing up for a retrial in the case of the Estate of Greg Hill, a lawsuit in which the estate and survivors of Greg Hill were suing a police officer who shot him through Hills’ closed garage door.  He tried the case a 2nd time and is prepared, according to him, to try it as many times as it takes in order for him to get justice for Hill’s family.    On this episode of the podcast, I sit down with John Phillips. 

****************************************************************************  

Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer, appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discusses popular trials and cases and current events with other top lawyers around the country. Rockind has won just about every award imaginable, has represented athletes, celebrities, musicians, posters and has obtained acquittals in all varieties of cases. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.    The contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.  This, in our view, is fair use  pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material.   

 All other rights are reserved.

Neil Rockind dives into one of the most prolific cases in recent history with Mark Richards, Rittenhouse's lead attorney. You'll hear about the reactions of the public, about Rittenhouse's original lawyers, how Richards got involved and more.  You'll learn why Rittenhouse testified and about what the lawyers learned about the deliberations. 

***************************************************************************** 

Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer, appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discuss popular trials and cases and current events with other tops lawyers around the country. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his quick witted and aggressive cross examination style.    The contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We use portions of trial clips from YouTube and other sites including clips of Kyle Rittenhouse and the Trial.  It is in the public domain and is newsworthy.  This, in our view, is fair use  pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material.    All other rights are reserved.

Neil Rockind interviews Rockstar Capital Case Attorney Diane Menashe. The two discuss Diane's recent acquittal in the William Husel case, their stories of entering the field of law, and even show off their newfound friendship.

*****************************************************************************  

Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer, appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discuss popular trials and cases and current events with other tops lawyers around the country. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.    The contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We use portions of trial clips from YouTube and other sites including clips and photographs of Diane Menashe, William Husel, Jose Baez and witnesses and the Trial.  It is in the public domain and is newsworthy.  This, in our view, is fair use  pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material.    All other rights are reserved.

If you listened to Dream Team member, Carl Douglas, relive the Glove Incident and testimony, this is the full interview with him on the Killer Cross Examination Podcast. It is long but Carl had a front row seat to history and relishes in his role in that case and working with Cochran. The Dream Team. The members and lawyers that took part in the defense of OJ Simpson are legendary. The made history. This is the third interview that Neil Rockind has conducted with a member of the Dream Team: F Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz and now Carl Douglas. This is an incredible interview. He goes in depth on Cochran, Shapiro, OJ Simpson, the Glove Incident and more.

Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer, appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discuss popular trials and cases and current events with other tops lawyers around the country. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.  Week in and week out, we interview the best and most newsworthy lawyers in the country.  This episode is no exception.  The Dream Team, Part 3.

The contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We use portions of trial clips from YouTube and other sites including clips and photographs of OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Tupac Shakur and others in the public domain. It is in the public domain and is newsworthy.  This, in our view, is fair use  pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material.

All other rights are reserved.

#dreamteam #ojsimpson #crossexamination

The Dream Team obtained the biggest acquittal in history. OJ Simpson, the actor and football legend, was acquitted in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Who could forget the "If The Glove Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit" and the failed glove demonstration that led to that rhyme, the closing arguments and acquittal?

Carl Douglas, one of the remaining members of the Dream Team, takes us back to that moment in history and tells us what it was like. This is chilling and amazing. This is a snippet of an interview with Carl Douglas. His is the third in a series of interviews with the Dream Team that Neil Rockind has done: F Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz and now Carl Douglas. The full interview is available next on the Killer Cross Examination Podcast -- Dream Team, Part 3.

Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer, appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious cases court and also discusses popular trials and cases and current events. Nicknamed "The Rockweiler" and known for my cross examination style, Rockind interviews other top lawyers about their trials, war stories and careers. The contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We use portions of trial clips and photographs from various sites that broadcast the OJ Simpson trial. It is in the public domain and is newsworthy. This, in our view, is fair use pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material.

All other rights are reserved

Steve Fishman, my guest on this episode of the Killer Cross Examination Podcast, said, "it is no surprise that a country founded on racism and slavery has police officers who are still prejudiced and racist."  Fishman, from Detroit, and I break down the tragedies that we've seen in recent history, Breonna Taylor, Daunte Wright, George Floyd, Andre Hill and more ... we review video of the NJ Mall incident together and Steve shares his thoughts on the newly nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the US Supreme Court and why that is so important. 

We even talk about Tucker Carlson, Bill Barr, Roselawn, Mumford and Central High Schools.

My blood is boiling. I've commented on cases on television and radio and I've cross examined the best of witnesses -- officers, witnesses, experts and others with vigor, vim and eye toward destroying their credibility and when I saw the NJ Mall incident where the police detain a black youth and "comfort" a white teen, drove me to commentary. I've offered to represent the black youth and I welcome the police to come on my podcast to be cross examined and questioned by me.  The only explanation for the police behavior appeared to be prejudice and race.  Here is my take -- tell me otherwise. 

Why? Of all of the careers some of you could choose or some of you chose, why did you become a judge? Why choose this one? On behalf of everyone ... I need to ask this question and on this episode of the Killer Cross Examination Podcast, I do.  They don't call me The Rockweiler for nothing and on this episode,  I turn my sarcasm, criticism and humor towards those that assumed the bench for all the wrong reasons.  Take a listen and let me know what you think ...

#crossexamination #judges #triallawyer

School shootings. The fact that we are even discussing it is a disgusting sign of the times. Oxford High School is just the latest school to be the site of a massacre. Ethan Crumbley is charged with murder for his role in the Oxford High School Massacre.  Ethan's parents are charged with manslaughter. But what about the schools, school officials, districts, etc? Schools are less safe than an airport for crying out loud and we've had enough. What policies and laws are preventing us from holding schools, districts and administrations from being held accountable? Civil rights lawyer Vince Colella who has handled cases alongside lawyers such as Brian Claypool, Ben Crump and full disclosure, yours truly, breaks it down. 

This is an episode not be missed. 

Robert Durst is dead.  I’ve spent a lot of time discussing Robert Durst, his life, his trials and his convictions. He died while his conviction for killing Susan Berman is in appeal. What it means….

This is a one of a kind podcast episode. Steve Fishman is a one of a kind trial attorney.  Fishman has won some of the biggest verdicts in Michigan.  He and I have handled and tried cases together and in this podcast episode, Steve Fishman and I share stories from some of the cases that we've handled together and more.  Who is Steve Fishman? Some know him from his days playing basketball at the University of Michigan alongside Rudy Tomjanovich. Others from his "Mumford High School" days. He is a Detroit, Michigan legend.  Steve Fishman’s client roster reads like a "Who's Who" in Detroit.  Many remember him from defending Demetrius Hollway, Chris Webber, Robert Traylor, Monica Conyers, former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway and Ben Wallace to name just a few.

It took one line in a nationally covered trial for pundits, members of the public and lawyers everywhere to learn what we already knew in here in Michigan:  Steve Fishman is a natural. What was the line? After Gerry Spence said, "I'm from Wyoming” to a jury, Steve Fishman got up, not missing a beat, and said, "I'm from Wyoming too … Wyoming and Curtis." It drew laughs, showed how relatable he was and endeared him to the jury and public immediately.  That one line captivated the courtroom.  But it wasn't a trick or a gimmick, Fishman is sincere, humorous, quick witted and has the ability to size up the room and capitalize on a moment like few others.  And … there are no better cross examiners anywhere. Period. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Full disclosure, Fishman is one of my mentors and dear friends but he wouldn't be on this podcast just for those reasons.  He's here because he really is that good.

Before the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, few outside of Wisconsin knew or had even heard of Judge Bruce Schroeder. Now, nearly everyone does and it seems that they all have an opinion about him.  From explaining the reasoning for his rulings, yelling at the prosecutors, making bizarre comments and at times demeaning statements, e.g., his “Asian food” comment, Judge Schroeder has turned much of the attention towards him.  I’m not here to talk about his rulings, the quality of the the lawyering or Rittenhouse’s guilt (we’ll have time to break that down later) but rather about the Judge’s demeanor, personality and whether it is more common than you’d like to believe.  The answers may surprise you. Tune into this solo edition of the Killer Cross Examination Podcast.

He defended the real life “Mule”, the subject of the movie starring Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper and directed by Clint Eastwood, represented Drew Peterson, the former police officer charged with murdering one of his wives and took part in the “Family Secrets” case in which characters and scenes in the movie Casino, starring Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci, were loosely based and he’s here to share his stories and approach to trials. Darryl Goldberg Does Killer Cross!

I bet you didn’t know that Wonder Woman lives in Kansas. Well, she does. Swain is nicknamed “Wonder Woman” and her firm is often referred to as “the Swain Train”.  The Rockweiler meets Wonder Woman.  This is an incredible episode.

For all of you progressives and for whose who wonder if it is different for a woman, listen to this episode. Swain is a maverick. In the heart of the Midwest, Kansas, Swain’s motto is “F— the Patriarchy” and she means it! She ran for Attorney General and wasn’t supported by either party.  When asked who she’d like to cross examine, whether dead or alive, she said, “OJ Simpson”!  When asked why? Swain said, “because I’d get him to confess.” Amazing stuff! When asked who the best cross examiner she’s ever seen was/is, she didn’t hesitate, “me”, she said.  For years, the gnarlier the case, the more she wanted to be involved.

Making A Murderer, the Netflix Documentary Series, captured the attention of tends of millions.  The series followed the prosecution of Steve Avery and Brendan Dassey for the murder of Teresa Halback.  Dean Strang defended Steve Avery and he takes us behind the scenes, tells us what it was like making the show, his reaction to the verdict, his style in the courtroom and his favorite cross examination story (it involves Wayne Newton, the venerable Las Vegas entertainer).  He discusses how he became a lawyer, what he did before becoming a lawyer, how he ended up in criminal defense and how he ended up defending Avery in case that gripped the nation.  You do not want to miss this episode - and this is one that the longer you listen to it, the better it gets.

This 26 minutes could change your life. I'm not kidding. We have shocking new information and evidence regarding breath tests and breathalyzers that you need to know and that we just obtained.  This will shock the legal system, the prosecutors, the police, the judges and probation officers. How do I know?  Watch and listen.

Ever wondered what sets some lawyers apart? Creativity and ingenuity are among those qualities along with an ability to read the room and execute. In this episode, John Lewan uses an unconventional approach to destroy a witness’ credibility. It is fascinating and I break it down in this segment. If you love courtroom drama, this episode is for you.

If you’re a young lawyer, you can learn a lot from this segment. Let me know what you think??!! What do you think about this approach?

IN MEMORY OF F. LEE BAILEY
(June 10, 1933 - June 3, 2021)

I was fascinated with his career, his swagger and combative style for as long as I can remember. How couldn’t I be? He dropped out of law school but yet still became a lawyer and among his first cases was the appeal, defense and acquittal of Dr. Sam Shepard, the doctor who was wrongly convicted of killing his wife whose story was the loose basis for the movie, The Fugitive.  From early on, F. Lee Bailey, walked with a heavy foot leaving an impression in the legal system and society beyond.  This last week, Bailey passed away at the age of 87.  Despite a career that includes participation in some of the most important, notorious and high profile cases in the 20th Century, Bailey is still, in my opinion, not given his due.  No case was too unpopular nor controversial for Bailey, who took on the defenses of the Boston Strangler, Sam Shepard, Curtis LeMay in the My Lai massacre, Patricia Hearst and OJ Simpson to name just a few.  

I have no interest in litigating his strengths or weaknesses here. But I’ll just say that if he was on your side, he was as he was proud to say so and stay there forever. These are admirable qualities in any age but particularly so today. I write about him, in a eulogy of sorts, and I do so because many of the younger generations do not recognize his name or the shadow he cast as a young lawyer or in his career.  They may know him from Simpson trial and the now well-known cross examination of the Mark Fuhrman. Few know much him about before that which is sad. Before social media, e.g., Tik ToK, Instagram, Facebook, etc. made self-promotion and advertising a thing, one had to earn the attention of the media, admiration and “following” of the public and respect of the general public. One had to actually do something – win cases, chart a new course, be innovative, etc.  Bailey did all of that and was all of that.  He was a household name not because of advertising or a marketing campaign but because he put himself front and center in controversy.  

A few months before his passing, he graced me with an interview. I admit that I’m a bit of a legal nerd in the sense that I watch, read about and study trials.  I watch TV shows about trials, read novels about trials and enjoy watching other practice the art/science that I have dedicated much of my adult life and so when Bailey agreed to be interviewed on the Killer Cross Examination Podcast, I was, I imagine, like a kid about to meet Joe Dimaggio of Yankee fame back in the day.  

I could have talked with him for hours. He remembered facts from cases 40 years ago and beyond.  He honestly appraised the cross examination of Mark Fuhrman, acknowledging that he got lucky when "the tapes" appeared. He admitted that his cross was planned to be a setup to create a logical contradiction in the minds of the jurors and to juxtapose Fuhrman's denials with the testimony of other witnesses who the defense planned on calling. He could have easily claimed that his cross of Fuhrman (when compared to the recordings) was intentional but he was too much of an artist to do so. When I mentioned his superb cross of Sgt. David Rossi, a textbook cross examination, he responded, "a true lawyer would know that" or something to that effect.  

Near the end of my time with Bailey he eerily commented on his legacy and foreshadowed his passing.  He paid me a high honor, "I can't tell describe a trial lawyer but I know one when I see one" and pointed at me. I can say the same, Lee - I don't know how to describe a trial lawyer but F. Lee Bailey, "you were surely that - a badass trial lawyer." 

Rather than post a new podcast this week, we repost my interview with Bailey in his memory.

So long my friend.

Dick Deguerin is a legendary Texas criminal defense lawyer yet I’ve watched some of the Robert Durst Trial in which Deguerin represents the millionaire heir with some puzzlement and bewilderment. In this segment, I focus on a particularly difficult witness and the beginning of Deguerin’s cross examination as examples of, in my opinion, “what not to do.”

Too many notes, disorganized materials at the podium, non leading questions and gilding the Lily (something I’ve discussed previously on the podcast) get Deguerin behind the witness in this battle.  I’ve always maintained and still do to this moment that every exchange with a witness in cross examination is a battle, a sale or a tug of war and as the examiner, you cannot afford to lose that battle or sale.  If the witness is controlling the examiner, the examiner and his client suffer. One way to control the witness is to use leading questions.

A leading question is a type of question that prompts a respondent towards providing an already-determined answer. This type of question is suggestive as it is framed in such a way that it implies or points to its answer(s). Ask any of the great cross examiners, cross examination teachers and authors on cross examination, eg, Roger Dodd, and they’ll tell you to use leading questions on cross examination. Read any of the leading texts or books and you’ll read the same.

In this segment, I examine a clip from the Durst trial. It’s not pretty.  Take a look.

Robert Durst is on trial for the murder of his friend, Susan Berman.  Durst was also accused of murdering and dismembering Morris Black in Texas.  And Robert Durst is suspected to be the cause of his wife, Kathy Durst’s disappearance, in the 70’s.  Three people close to him - wife, best friend and roommate — dead or missing.  If the case sounds familiar to you that is because it should.  Robert Durst is multimillionaire heir to a real estate empire in New York City whose life has been covered repeatedly in the news and in pop art: the disappearance of his wife, Kathy Durst, was the subject of the movie, All Good Things starring Ryan Gosling.  The Morris Black case in which Durst admitted to killing and dismembering Black was the subject to tv shows not only due to Durst’s notoriety but that Durst was allegedly hiding out in Texas living in near squalor despite being a millionaire.  And, he admitted to dismembering Black and sinking his body into the Galveston Bay and yet despite all of that evidence, he was acquitted of the murder.  If it sounds unfamiliar, it is likely you’re not a fan of Law and Order because 3 episodes were devoted to Durst and if none of this rings a bell, perhaps this will - Durst voluntarily participated in a documentary called “The Jinx” in which he was confronted with evidence of his complicity in the disappearance of his wife and his friend Susan Berman and while wearing a microphone, walked into a bathroom and said, “I killed all, of course.”

This murder case is what is called a “cold case murder” and if that wasn’t enough to draw our attention to it, the interaction between the star cast of lawyers is … it is fascinating.  The trial features Dick Deguerin, a Texas legend, who engineered Durst’s acquittal in the Morris Black case, David Chesnoff, a Nevada lawyer who is considered among the most respected in the nation and a cold case special prosecutor, John Lewin.  In this episode, using real clips from the trial, I reveal how the prosecutor is engaging in what are called speaking objections, how they impact the courtroom and, in my opinion,, promote unfairness to the defense and defense lawyers.  Lewin argues objections that he was won, argues after the judge makes preliminary rulings and makes these offers of proof that have the capacity or potential to telegraph or suggest to witnesses and jurors what the evidence will or should be.  The dynamic between the old school Texas Southern gentleman lawyers and the feisty cold case prosecutor is something to watch and something that the judge has yet to get under control.   Watch how it plays it out with my commentary and tell me what you think.

In 2017, I obtained acquittals for Charles Warren in the a motor vehicle homicide case in which he was accused of causing the death of a Michigan State Trooper.  From the incident, through the investigation and from gavel to gavel, the case was intensely covered by the media.  The trial was live-streamed, covered by social media sites, televised and discussed in the news.  The deceased was a state trooper and the investigating agency was the Michigan State Police.  We saw an opening to establish that the investigation was biased.  In this episode of Killer Cross Examination, I break down how I constructed and executed a cross examination of the state’s investigator and expert witness and put the bias questions to him.  In this episode, I use the actual cross examination of the expert and walk you through it, offering commentary along the way.

Bias.  Establishing that a witness is biased is one of the cross examiners chief objectives but it is not easy.  Few witnesses will agree that “I am biased.”  Few will readily answer affirmatively when the question is to put to them - “Are you biased?”.

If you asked the question directly, the witness would deny it and deny it passionately.  So, the cross examiner must attempt to establish that the witness is biased through a series of small steps, i.e., questions, that force the witness to have to admit to certain facts which when taken together show or reveal a bias or the appearance of a bias.  Done correctly, it can be a devastating trap for a witness that will require the witness to

Imagine a hallway with many doors and that you are walking the witness down the hallway.  As you walk down the hallway, the witness closes each door on his own only to find himself at the end of the hallway, with only one door left.  He is forced to either go through the door or attempt to not go through it but that is exactly where you want him to be - forced to enter it or forced to refuse to do so.  It is this Hobson’s Choice that dooms the witness.  To put it back into cross examination terms, you want the witness to be forced to have to choose between admitting the obvious or denying the obvious.  The former forces the witness the admit his own bias, the latter, forces the witness to deny the obvious.

Connecticut Magazine called Norm Pattis, the Connecticut civil rights and criminal defense lawyer, the Defender of the Despised. It is a mantle he wears proudly.  If you read about a criminal case in Connecticut, there is a good chance that Pattis represents the client, passed on the case or is in talks to take it over.  His clients include Alex Jones, the controversial conservative firebrand and host of Infowars.  Pattis is my guest on this week's episode of Killer Cross Examination.  

I'm still reeling from the amount of information that Pattis shared with me during this episode.  Pattis, who has won millions of dollars in civil rights verdicts including in some of the most improbable of cases, e.g., Kevin King (just look the case up - Kevin King Prison Abuse) and obtained acquittals in too many cases to count.  Recently, he obtained an acquittal in the high-profile case of Saifullah Khan, the college student accused of committing a sexual assault upon a fellow student.  Pattis' shares his background growing up in Detroit and how his hard knocks youth gave him the chip on his shoulder that motivates him to this day. Pattis shared trial tips and strategies including the "Acid Rain" cross examination: drop after drop after drop of unrelenting acid rain that eventually, slowly, methodically kills the witness.  Pattis described his jury selection style as looking for "bounce", who can he sit down and talk to at a bar and who "gives you something back."  Pattis discusses how as a lawyer he deals with "inconvenient truths", those facts that hurt his case but that he needs to own.  He shares his "zipper method" style of cross examination and cross examination preparation, how he insists on learning the science to combat expert witnesses, using voir dire of the expert to get into and under the skin of the expert before the jury sees the cross examination and how he has physically gotten on the table and on the floor to make his points during cross and trial.  When he senses blood in the water, as he puts it, he goes for it.   Pattis actually uses the courtroom as theater.

Let me tell you something — if you are looking for a trial tips, closing tips, analogies, analogies, metaphors, etc., you'll have to watch this interview with Pattis multiple times.  

Pattis has written 3 books, is a nascent stand-up comedian, writes a blog and hosts his own podcast, Law and Legitimacy.

If you want to hear how one of America’s best and most visible trial lawyers does her business, you want to listen to this episode. Do not miss this episode.

This week, I go one on one with a former Court TV host and high profile civil rights lawyer, Lisa Bloom.  While Lisa is the daughter of one of America’s most successful and committed civil rights lawyers, Gloria Allred, Lisa has made her own mark in her career and is no stranger to the spotlight.  She has represented individuals and plaintiffs against comedian Bill Cosby,  Fox Host Bill O’Reilly, Rep John Conyers, former President Donald Trump, Guess CEO Paul Marciano, Hollywood Producer Akil David, the Los Angeles Police Department and countless other power moguls and figures.  Lisa actually hosted several shows on Court TV including one that she co-hosted with Vinnie Politano, who still hosts a show on Court TV to this day.  She can be frequently seen providing legal commentary offering her insight on legal issues and high profile cases including the Chauvin-George Floyd trial.  Lisa is one of America’s foremost civil rights lawyers and has successfully advocated for sexual assault victims, victims of police misconduct, harassment and discrimination victims.  Her victories include, obtaining an 11 million dollar verdict against Hollywood producer Akil David and obtained a confidential “epic” settlement for former supermodel Janice Dickinson against Cosby.

This is not an ordinary interview of Lisa.  This is probing.  She talks about growing up in her mother’s (Gloria Allred) shadow, striking out on her own and building her own name, her experiences as a female trial attorney, the double standards she experienced and experiences as an aggressive female trial lawyer, fighting the powers to be, how she conducts voir dire, she uses the “Me Too Movement” to identify favorable and unfavorable jurors, how her opponents attempt to prejudice the jury against her using her celebrity status and high profile cases, battling Bill Cosby, fighting Bill O’Reilly, going after Rep John Conyers, representing the downtrodden and minimum wage earner against the powerful, her preparation, her style of questioning, when to make it about the witness (direct examination) and when to make it about the questioner (cross examination), when to speed things up, when to slow things down, when to raise her voice and when not to, etc.  She shares the one person she wants to cross examine the most and why.

On this episode of Killer Cross Examination, I go one on one with Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel.  Many don’t know that Dana began her career in the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office and quickly developed a reputation as a firebrand courtroom prosecutor.  In this episode, she shares her style in the courtroom, how she used her humor and sarcasm, how she prepared for court and how she found her voice.  She shares meaningful cross examination stores about being so eager to begin question an adverse witness that she was jumping out of the chair and how on two (2) occasions, she put or found herself in physical danger in murder trials inside the courtroom.  I also ask her point blank about the double standard that she experienced as an aggressive female trial lawyer and how she is using her experiences as a criminal defense lawyer in her current role as Michigan’s chief law enforcement officer.  This is not your normal interview of a politician.  This is an episode that you will not want to miss.

As a child, I was labeled a “bad kid.” I had ADHD before anyone had really considered it an ailment. But people want to know more about how I got here … to this point and a part of that story is how I came to relate and empathize with the little guy, the outcast and you can’t understand that part of me without knowing about my youth.

I’ve said that defending the little guy is in my genes, my blood and in my DNA. People have asked how did I get here? How did I become an advocate for the accused, disregarded and ostracized? To those who want to know and those interested in how someone like me ends up being constructed — how I get here and what makes me tick — this episode is for you.

In this episode, I share some painful stories about my youth. My unpopularity, my feelings of being an outsider and my diagnosis of ADHD in the 70’s! To those parents whose children suffer from ADHD or ADD, I’ve offered an opportunity to reach out to me. To those kids, suffering from it, I make the same offer. Reach out … you can overcome and even in some ways, harness the condition and achieve.

Dr. Fagenbaum (the doctor that diagnosed me), Mrs. Snow (my first grade teacher at Pasteur Elementary in Detroit), Mrs. Carlton (a teacher of mine at Pasteur Elementary in Detroit), my mother, who dutifully packed my Ritalin pill every day for me to take a lunch, this episode is for you, and all the parents of kids who are on the fringe, this one is for you.

We’ve all heard the stories about the tough judges, the judges who view themselves as hard-asses. Lawyers traveling to other towns always ask, “tell me about the judge” because we want to know if the judge is tough or has developed a reputation for being a “hanging judge”. They have no place in today’s legal system but they exist and because of their impact in the lives of the accused before them, I take them on during this episode. We subject this style of judge to killer cross examination.

The first to state his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.

They biblical phrase describes trials, direct examination and cross examination in some ways better than any book or pamphlet.  Witnesses take the stand and on direct examination and “seem right”. They seem right, believable and convincing.  Then the challenge to their story comes in … we challenge their story.  We provide the counterweight.  When done, the witness no longer seems right.

I take you through a recent case, a probation violation hearing, where Proverbs 18:17 came to life.  I walk you through how the prosecution witness gave damning testimony against our client and it seemed “right” until cross examined.   This is a valuable lesson in not jumping to conclusions and allowing cross examination to tell the story.

Robinhood. Vlad.  Citadel.  Steve Cohen. David Portnoy.  Game Stop.  Nokia.  AMC Theaters Holdings.  Dogecoin.  Bitcoin.  Shorts.  Options.  Wall Street bets.  Reddit.  We’ve seen a convergence of these names, financial terms, stocks, companies and entities over last few weeks as old school Wall Street butted heads with the public and WSB Reddit.  But when traders needed a platform to trade, Robin Hood and other similar trading companies banned trades, halted trading, changed the rules.  Wall Street benefitted.  The individual investor did not.  Yet, not one of the leaders, power brokers or those involved were subjected to real cross examination - real powerful, probing questioning.  I saw the interviews on television.  Softball questions.  Time limits.  What we needed is/was killer cross examination of Vlad and others.  In fact, I offered to do it.

This is where Killer Cross Examination meets Robin Hood.

I get asked a lot of questions about criminal defense. I think all criminal lawyers do. The questions, you can guess them:

Here my take on why these questions miss the mark on what I/we do.

As a child, I watched the Wide World of Sports on ABC.  Like others, I loved the introduction - “the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.”  Who can forget the iconic ski jumper falling sideways off the ski jump, crashing and tumbling.  Pain. Hurt.  Disappointment.   In the criminal justice system, prosecutors can appeal rulings that they don’t like - when evidence is suppressed, police are adjudged to have broken the law or when a charge/case is dismissed.  I’ve watched client’s jump for joy, elation and relief when the charges are dismissed or evidence suppressed. I’ve watched as client’s have the proverbial rug pulled out from under them when the prosecutor appeals and tries to reverse the ruling.  It is cruel.

In this episode, I explore and discuss this phenomenon.  As I said, when prosecutor’s appeal, it is not appealing.

You’ve seen the interviews. Client sitting there. Lawyer next to her. And a reporter conducting an interview of them while the case is under investigation or while pending. Mia Ponsetto just did it, with her lawyer. Casey Anthony did it, with her lawyer. Others have done it with their lawyers too.

DON’T BE LIKE MIA. OR HER LAWYER.

In this episode, I explore these disastrous interviews and why you and your lawyer should avoid them at every turn.

The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution commands that no person shall be held on excessive bail.  Michigan’s statute and court rules repeat that refrain.  No excessive bail.  Yet how do you define excessive? How is the process to bail people out? How is it abused? Is it fair?

In this episode, I describe this process including a recent horrible experience that I had on a holiday.  The system failed - short circuited.  Listen in.  I want you to hear the story, understand how these hearings are misused and why cash bond is a dangerous tool to give a magistrate who knows nearly nothing about the case or the accused.

Your lawyer is your advocate, your friend, you counselor, your voice, your support system and your advisor so it seems obvious that you ought to tell your lawyer the truth. It seems obvious that you shouldn’t mislead your lawyer or withhold critical or important information.  Yet, this happens too frequently.  When you lie to your lawyer, you’re lying to yourself.

In this episode, I explore what happens when clients lie to their lawyers, how dangerous it is, how they undermine the lawyer’s ability to defend the client and how it is akin to tying our hands behind our back and tying our shoelaces together in a fight.

Take a listen.

Criminal defense is not for the weak or weary. Nor is it for learning or experimenting or to get experience. And it is not for older lawyers, past their prime, to “stay active” or to dabble here or there. We’re dealing with lives, liberty and reputations. We dealing with life changing consequences. Like surgeons. Baby doctors looking for experience or octogenarian internists looking to stay in the game don’t perform surgeries. Surgeries have real consequences and as a result we require surgeons to be experienced to ply their craft. Defense lawyering is no different. It’s time to stop treating our field like it is for anyone ... it is not. It is not for the weak or weary.

Prosecutors have a tremendous amount of power. I should know, I oppose them daily. Not to mention that for a very short period of time, I was one. In fact, upon hearing that I was a prosecutor once, the famed cowboy lawyer from Wyoming, Gerry Spence, said to me, “I forgive you, my son.” But I digress. Prosecutors have tremendous power. Among the most significant of their powers is the obligation not turn over what we call Brady evidence. 

Brady evidence is evidence that tends to help the accused and believe it or not, prosecutors decide for themselves what is and what is not Brady evidence. Sure sometimes we catch them in their failure to disclose it or the fact that they possess it but more often than not, we are left to trust that they have turned it over. Some prosecutors are very good at disclosure. Some, awful. This episode breaks down Brady evidence and how we can improve the legal system to ensure that accused citizens and their lawyers get Brady evidence and don’t just rely on prosecutors to turn it over.

Queen’s Gambit is a television show about chess. Bobby Fisher, perhaps the most famous/infamous chess player in history, once proclaimed that “chess is life.” In many ways, this is true. It is certainly true of litigation, criminal defense cases and the cross examination. When I cross examine, we are trying to think many moves ahead so that nothing our opponent does comes as a surprise. Rather, we are trying to maneuver our opponent, whether it be the prosecutor or a witness, into a bad position. Recently we obtained a dismissal in a very high-profile case in a traffic related death case. Rockind Law was the third law firm to get involved in the case and like a chess player, we surveyed the board, considered the possible moves and put in place a strategy to corner our opponent and obtain a dismissal. In the Queen’s Gambit show, Elizabeth Harmon, the star of the show, is known for visualizing her moves and the board. We did this in our most recent win. In this episode, the Queen’s Gambit Episode of our podcast, I walk you through that victory and strategy.

“If I find anything that you haven’t told me about, I’ll shred your house apart.”

There is not much ambiguity in this statement. A seasoned police detective in the presence of another uniform officer said this to a scared 18 year old who had just been arrested. The kid became physically and noticeably ill. When he summoned up the courage to inquire about a lawyer, he was put off. When he asked to make a call to his unsuspecting mother and grandmother, who were at home, he was put off. This is intolerable. All lawyers should not only condone this behavior, but do what you have to put a stop to it.

Yet, I’m still in court defending the case with attempts being made to compartmentalize the misconduct or say that it doesn’t change anything.

This episode is devoted to this case, this fight. 

We recently won a criminal case in which a judge suppressed evidence that was illegally seized.  We knew that the traffic stop and arrest of our client was a pretext.  It was all done so that the officer could get into our client’s car. But how would and how could we prove it.  We setup a cross examination that would reveal the officers true motivations and show that he had no evidence that our client committed a crime, but stretched the law anyway in order to accomplish his goal — getting into his car to do a search.

We're told that Congress is full of lawyers but why then are Congress(wo)man and Senators generally so bad at questioning witnesses?  Save a couple, e.g., Rep Katie Porter, they are.  I'm not arguing.  I'm stating a fact.  In Episode 22, I get back to some basics of cross examination and offer some tips on how to control witnesses, how cross examination is like a sales call (remember "Boiler Room" or Glengarry Glenross) in which  a sale is happening with every question and answer - either you're selling them on the fact that the witness is a liar and not reliable or the witness is selling them on the fact that you are not credible and your client is guilty or you’re on the losing side.

The Breath Alcohol Testing Program has been under attack.  For weeks, I’ve been exposing the breath test program for the sham that it is.  In Episode 21, I really take apart the program for its lack of transparency and how the program has been set up to insulate the program, the units, the operators the technicians from full confrontation and cross examination.  Our cross examination in this case has opened a lot of eyes but it’s just one case.  In this episode I pull no punches. The logs, the record keeping, the Sgt. Schultz - mentality of the daily operators and the protection given to the program are as Un-American as can be and its about time someone points this out and that someone is me.

In Episode 19, we discussed a portion of our cross examination of the Michigan State Police Technical Leader/Toxicologist and what we uncovered and revealed during that hearing.  In Episode 20, we explore even more of our killer cross examination of this expert witness.  While the state and the MSP was sending these technicians out to testify and consult with the various police departments, the leaders of the program were discussing privately what they truly thought of the technicians.  These technicians given the highest level of classification as a Datamaster Operator, it was represented both expressly and impliedly that they were competent, prepared and capable.  Yet, the leaders of the program knew better.  Want until you hear what they said about these technicians behind their backs and among themselves.  Talk about talking behind someone’s back — what’s worse is that they misrepresented what they knew and thought about them.  Episode 20 is our next installment of this series.

RIP RBG

(March 15, 1933 – September 18, 2020)

A tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The phrase, gilding the lily, comes from a Shakespeare play, King John.  The line in the play is actually, "to paint the lily." The quotation reads, in part, "To gild refined gold, to paint the lily / To throw a perfume on the violet. . .. / Is wasteful and ridiculous excess."

What it means is simple:  when you already have something beautiful, e.g., a lily, gold, a violet, don't attempt to make it more beautiful.  All you do is risk ruining it.  For a cross examiner, this is a golden rule - DON'T GILD THE LILY.  In other words, once you've gotten the answer that you wanted or a good answer, leave it alone, don't attempt to make it better because you really just risk making it worse or ruining it.  How?  For example, you've gotten the witness the admit to describe the room in which he says a crime occurred that he personally observed incorrectly.  Leave it alone.  Instead, so many questioners in search of the "dunk" or in an effort to "make the point even clearer" ask further questions and clue the witness in that he made a mistake.  For example, rather than leaving the wrong description alone, the lawyer follows up with more:

The lawyer has gilded the lily.  Rather than leave the answer alone, he tried to improve on it with more follow up only to ruin it.  In Episode 17, I explore this phenomenon and encourage you all to stop, respect the good answer and don't gild the lily to make it better.

Science. Complex, costly, imperfect and time consuming. That’s the way science has been, is and always will be. Unless of course, it is the “science” of the law enforcement and the criminal justice system. The complex and imperfect sciences that we are familiar with become, in the legal system, perfect, beyond question, fast and I expensive. Why? Because the legal system needs certainty and expediency, not costly and uncertain. Uncertainty means doubt and that means reasonable doubt. In Episode 16, I begin to touch on how the legal system has converted science, kidnapped it and made it into something it is not - beyond question. Maybe, as I point out, if we treated science with more respect and awe, we’d treat those in the system with more respect and awe themselves.

Of all the questions I get regarding cross examination and trial work, “how do you deal with difficult judges?” is asked the most often. During Episode 15, I explore  the qualifications of becoming a judge and share stories of how I've dealt with difficult judges in the past. Most jurors and members of the public think that a judge must’ve been an amazing all-knowing lawyer and must know all areas of the law. Wrong. Worse, some judges cannot help but interfere in the trial and interfere in the cross examination. How do you handle these judges without losing the jury and without hurting your client’s case? Very carefully. Listen to the episode for more ...

Whether intended or not, prosecutors are the most powerful entity in the criminal justice system.  That's right.  You probably thought judges were.  While judges have tremendous power, in the end prosecutors have more.  They have the power to charge people with crimes, decide what crimes to charge, seek enhancements, make plea bargains, propose sentence agreements, etc.  The list is endless.  It is because prosecutors have so much power that special rules of responsibility (ethical rules) apply to them.   Prosecutors are supposed to ministers of justice and not just advocates.  Think about that for a moment — ministers of justice.  That means they have an additional responsibility to not just advocate for a conviction but to do justice.

While most people know of prosecutors who work for the government or state, there is another type of prosecutor that most are unaware of — the city or municipal attorney.  Some cities hire their attorney or prosecutors internally.  In those cities, the attorneys function like a prosecutor hired by the state or county — they are government employees. However, most are not.  Most work for private law firms whose firms bid for a contract with a municipality or city.  These contracts can be withdrawn or terminated or the firm could, if the city is displeased with the relationship, could be lost during a competitive bidding process.

This podcast is devoted to this type of prosecutor, the city attorney who works for a private law firm who wants to keep the city contract.  While most that I've encountered are responsible and can put aside the need to keep the city or municipality pleased, some do not.  What happens then? What happens when the city or municipal prosecutor is servant to two (2) masters, justice on the one hand and those that hired them on the other?

Enjoy Episode 14.

We can learn a lot by watching someone do it right. We can also learn much, maybe even more, by watching someone do it wrong or poorly.  And this episode I break down and tear apart a cross examination done by another lawyer of a very important state expert witness.  I hold nothing back.  I. Hold. Nothing. Back.

From asking open-ended questions, to having no plan, to not having ammunition to challenge the witness to asking questions of the witness that could do nothing but help the witness appear stronger, I point out various parts of the cross examination so that listeners and others can learn … what not to do.  If you can’t help your client or the case with asking questions, then don’t.  Just sit down.  But in this cross examination, the one that we tear apart, the lawyer did the opposite.  He brought a butter knife to a battlefield when the other side was armed with nukes and then tried to puke at the expert.  Not only did not help his client, it emboldened expert, made him appear more credible and gave the prosecution the appearance of having solid ground to stand on.

There is something called the sponsorship theory of trial advocacy .  If you put evidence out there or question a witness, the judge and/or jury will assume that the information you have or the information you are advancing is as good as it gets.  They will assume that you’re doing all you can and if you can do is hurt your position and aid the other side, the Court or jury will draw that conclusion.  This is to be avoided at all costs and in this episode, I break down a cross examination that did just that in my opinion, undermined the defense and helped the expert and state make their case even stronger.

If you want to learn what not to do, in my opinion, tune in.

From a young age, we’ve been told that ignorance of the law is not defense a criminal offense or charge.  But shouldn’t it be?  The concept that ignorance of the law is no defense is rooted in the notion that we should know what the laws are and govern ourselves accordingly.  But how can we? Every year, the legislature passes more and more laws making more and more acts criminal violations.  For years, the legislature was creating an average of 45 felonies a year.  That doesn’t include misdemeanors and doesn’t include local municipalities.  The number of new laws is just staggering.  It is impossible to keep up with.  But even if you could, you’re required to know how those laws are being interpreted by the various appellate courts as well.  It is simply overwhelming.  It can even prove overwhelming for the police, yet, according to our courts, the police can be ignorant about whether was something was a crime and the evidence they seize or gather as a result of their mistaken believe that you were committing a crime is still evidence even though they were wrong so long as they acted reasonably or in good faith.  You read that right — if you act reasonably or in good faith, you can still be charged and convicted but if the police do the same thing, the evidence they seize can still come in as evidence against you.  We should get back to a different standard — criminal intent.  Either you intend to break the law or you don’t.  If you do, you should be able to be prosecuted.  If you don’t, you should not or at least you should be able to defend yourself saying, “I acted in good faith.  I thought what I was doing was legal.”  If it is good enough for the police, it is good enough for the rest of us.

Tune in and hear my take.

In this episode, Neil Rockind discusses the concept known as the “Presumption of Innocence” and describes why it is such a cornerstone of our justice system. He analyzes the impact and effect of this presumption and explains the grave danger inherent in disregarding this essential aspect of the law.

By incorporating examples of how this would fare if it was applied in our daily lives, Neil makes it clear just how destructive it may be when we choose to ignore the presumption of innocence and instead jump to conclusions. Listen to Episode 11 to hear more!

Did you know that the police and prosecution must turn over evidence favorable to the defense to the accused?  Did you know that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that it is a denial of due process for a prosecutor not to turn over favorable evidence? Likewise, did you know that even if a prosecutor is unaware of the evidence, if any member of the police department or someone within the sphere of influence and control of the prosecution knows about it, it must be disclosed.  Yet, why do cases still get overturned for the failure of evidence to be disposed?

Perhaps the root of the problem is that some police officers do not took for evidence of innocence or as we call it, “exculpatory evidence”.  Instead, the police simply seek out evidence that confirms the allegations or “helps prove the charges” rather than seek or attempt to obtain evidence that undercuts the allegations.  Most police officers would claim that they are neutral, i.e., that they just gather evidence without bias but when do they overlook evidence that tends to exculpate the accused so regularly.

Within the last month, I’ve cross-examined 2 police officers who both admitted that they didn’t know what exculpatory evidence was.  Isn’t that shameful?  How can police officers claim to look for something and claim to preserve it if they don’t know what it is?  How can prosecutor’s claim to have turned everything over and to be even handed ministers of justice, if the police officers that are working with them don’t know what exculpatory evidence is?

Things should change.  If they haven’t looked for and processed all evidence, and most importantly, evidence that favors the accused, than a person should not stand trial for that offense.  Hear me discuss this issue in Episode 10.

There’s a court reporter either sitting somewhere in the courtroom or someone ready to turn the recording into a verbatim record. So, stop looking down at your notepad trying to take down word for word what the witness says in direct examination. Instead, just as you’d tell your child or teen to pick their head up from their phone, pick your head up and look at what’s happening in front of you. Much of communication is non-verbal. Movements, positioning, facial expressions, arm and body placement and style of answering, eg, direct or narrative and rambling, can only be learned by watching a witness. So, watch. This not only applies to witnesses, but in life ... watch how others communicate rather than trying to remember what he/said, watch how they’re saying it.

I once was prepared to examine a witness in a trial whose demeanor told me everything. He was hostile, angry and vengeful about my client not having promoted him years ago. I could only tell how hostile he was by watching his demeanor. His tone and posture revealed that he was trying to spike the balk and my client’s future with every answer. That was only learned by watching him. Had I shoved my head in my notepad, I’d have missed it. It proved to be an easy cross examination because the jury, once I shared with him/them, his motivation and bias, the manner of speech and communicating made sense. They discredited what he had to say.

Episode 9 is devoted to this tip on cross examination. You’re not a note taker. Listen. Watch. You’ll learn a lot more than you will from having “good notes.”

The system has to work in all cases including cases in which people are accused of drunk driving or DUI. But is it? Over the years, these investigations have become one-sided, slanted and skewed. Exculpatory and favorable evidence is ignored. Any misstep by the driver is interpreted, without question or query, as evidence of intoxication or impairment. Even the slightest physical “sign”, e.g., bloodshot eyes, is assumed without follow-up or investigation, to be the result of alcohol or drug consumption and intoxication. When we query the police about whether they made any inquiry at all or did they just assume, they are cornered time and time again into admitting they made assumptions and relied on supposition. Yet, it continues.

In episode 8, I explore how intoxicated or impaired (DUI cases) are built by the police from the initial observation of driving to the arrest. I explore how the process is skewed and how the legal system has over time become seemingly tolerant of slanted investigations into allegations drunk driving. You’ll hear how the police have been permitted to ignore troves of favorable, exculpatory evidence while cherry picking a couple of “bad” facts and using those against the driver. Any mistake that could be due to nerves or fear is noted as a sign of intoxication and impairment. And if the driver acquits himself perfectly on all of the questions and tests, the police just assume that “he’s a good drunk” and “he holds his liquor well.” What’s worse … nearly all of the evidence gathered in the investigation comes from the driver’s own mouth and his own deeds. After arrest, if the police want to interrogate you, Miranda Warnings (the subject of Episode 7) are required. But during a traffic stop and investigation into drunk driving, they aren’t required. And because people choose to answer questions and participate during these skewed investigations, they end up providing most of the evidence against themselves. They unwittingly assist and aid the police in making the case against them and they do so thinking they have a chance to convince the police that they weren’t intoxicated, impaired or high. They end up being their own worst enemy.

Anyone who has watched any television show involving cops or the legal system, knows the Miranda Warnings.  We know the words but what do they really mean.  Not using legalese or fancy lingo, what do each of the rights really mean to the average person.  How should you understand them? And why do so many people despite the warnings, waive them and make statements to the police that harm their case?

We tackle this subject in Episode 7. I break them down in a way that you’ve never heard. You’ll never think of the Miranda Warnings quite the same.

While some trials involve forensic or scientific evidence, all trials involve an element of witness credibility. Historically and as a matter of common sense, we know that some witnesses will lie, get together and get their story straight or at least try to. We separate our children and students in class when we’re trying to figure out who broke the vase. Where the stories diverge or contradict, we can start to get at the truth. There is an old biblical story about 2 elders who accused a woman, Susanna, but were caught lying during a trial. How? They were separated. Sequestered. And when their stories differed, it was evident that she was innocent and they were lying.

In the law, there are rules to create the same environment. Sequester witnesses so that they cannot hear what the other has to say. This allows us to show contradictions, inconsistencies and even outright lies. This is what cross is about but there is a rule, a procedural rule, that is used by the prosecution and state to get around this rule in an important way: they are permitted to have a police officer sit in the courtroom the entire time and listen to what every witness says. Even when that officer testifies, they can designate another officer to sit there and do the same thing. While every other witness is sequestered, the detective is not. It’s unfair but there is a way to deal with it. Listen and find out ...

Our country is witnessing an awakening of sorts. Our eyes are more open to the power that we have given to those whose job it is to protect and serve, the police. Before  squad car video recordings, body cams and citizen made cellphone recordings, what happened during a police encounter or investigation came down to the citizen’s word vs the officer’s.  Anyone familiar with trying to fight a traffic ticket knows the hopeless feeling that “they’ll just believe the cop.” Did you know that in the criminal justice system, the law has always been that “police testimony is to be given no more weight than a regular citizens”?  But how has it been applied? Is it applied or often ignored and at what costs?

Neil Rockind tackles the timely subject of police witnesses in this episode.  He shares his experiences and how society and the system could truly benefit If we really applied that rule - give officers no more benefit of the doubt than anyone else.

This is Part 2 of Death by a Thousands Cuts and follows closely with Episode 3. Its been said that in the prior episode, the witness’ testimony was “dead” after only 2 cuts rather than 1,000. In Part 2, the witness was cut repeatedly … over and over and over again.

A variation of Proverbs 18:17 reveals that he who speaks first seems right until another gets up to question him. This is so true of cross examination and is really brought to life in this episode. A witness for the state, so confident and sure of himself, proudly testified on direct examination about how he followed and observed Neil’s client turn into a car wash driveway and how the agent/officer turned down a nearby street, drove to the bottom of a hill, stopped in a driveway and kept a close on the participants the entire time. By the time he was done testifying on direct examination, he claimed he had been able to observe the accused and the others engage in criminal activity. It sure seemed powerful and compelling … until the cross examination.

Listen to how Neil, after visiting the scene, took apart the witness’ testimony. The witness fought with Neil on every question and answer, something that was not lost on the jury and Neil’s co-counsel. The more he fought, the more we knew that we had revealed the truth. Killer Cross Examination works when applied just right.

If you like these episodes, please subscribe to our podcasts and feel free to make suggestions about subjects you’d like to see or hear about in the future.

Death By A Thousand Cuts is a form of torture. Literally. The subject is repeatedly and slowly cut, with each cut inflicting a small amount of pain and bloodshed. One individually is not enough to kill the subject. But together, by the end, after many cuts, the subject is done. Psychologically speaking, Death By A Thousand Cuts occurs when something negative is happening to another but it is happening slowly, incrementally and almost without notice until it is too late.

Approaching a witness for cross examination, many lawyers want a clean, knockout punch – one shot that ends the witness’ credibility. Those Perry Mason / Matlock moments rarely, rarely happen. While my approach to cross examination can lead to knockout punches, and sometimes does, what more often happens is that the witness’ credibility is destroyed, i.e., killed, slowly. Death By A Thousand Cuts.

In this episode, I discuss a cross examination of an agent who was part of a large, multi-jurisdictional task force that was investigating a group of people in the Chicago, Illinois and metro-Detroit area. My client, a man in his 60’s was among the defendants. Four (4 ) others were charged as well. They were all charged with Conspiracy To Deliver 1000 grams or more of a controlled substance and Possession of a 1000 grams or more of a controlled substance. Specifically, the government was accusing them of taking part in an intricate plot to transport cocaine in kilogram quantities from Chicago through Michigan and beyond.

My client was locked up during the entire case. Our defense? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The police had been overly aggressive in their pursuit of those involved and in the process charged an innocent man.

Central to the state’s case was what the police described and alleged as an exchange in which my client transferred drugs (in a piece of luggage) from his vehicle to another. Later, when the other vehicle was stopped, the police located the drugs. One officer claimed to have observed the transfer, while another claimed to have followed my client from his apartment to the location of the alleged transfer – a self-car wash. Both witness’ testimony were potentially damaging to my client’s defense. This episode is about the latter officer, the one conducting surveillance and how I undermined his credibility entirely.

I listened very carefully to his testimony both in a previous hearing and during the trial. He claimed to see my client pull directly into the car wash. Despite what he as claiming, it was my opinion that he hadn’t seen anything of the sort. I wanted to cast doubt on that claim. Sometimes witnesses claim to see things when in reality they are just putting pieces together of events they did see and then filling in the gaps with what seems logical. They do this for many reasons – some to help their case, some because they are biased, some because they think they won’t get caught and some because they should have been in a position to see something important but failed to do so. I believed all of the above applied here. Take a listen and see how I revealed, through a killer cross examination, our truth as to what really happened.

Question after question was like cut after cut. In the end, the witness’ credibility was destroyed, i.e., killed. Death by a Thousand Cuts.

As I recall, I was 25-26, probably somewhere in between and making my way in the tense environment of the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office where I was a young assistant prosecutor. The office was not without controversy. Our supervisors directed us to plea bargain few cases meaning that most proceeded to straight pleas or were set for trial. For young lawyers looking for trial experience, we were sure to get it working in Oakland County.

Early on, young prosecutors are assigned a mentor and to a courthouse. In the beginning, everything is under the watchful eye of the mentor. My first trial was no exception. From the start, I pushed hard. I learned the Michigan Rules of Evidence and studied the new cases that came out of the appellate courts interpreting them. I knew then that if I knew the rules, I would be ahead of the game and that’s where I wanted to be – at the head of the field and at the head of the game, so to speak. And so, when my first trial opportunity came along under the watchful eye of my mentor, I was ready. And what a trial it was –

First, I was sick as a dog. There was no coronavirus then but I had all the symptoms – fever, sore throat, cough, sweats, chills and runny/stuff nose. I was a mess. Yet, nothing was keeping me from trying that case. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. I came to court with throat lozenges, Tylenol, tissues, sore throat spray, etc. It was like a pharmacy in the conference room. Why did I push on? I wanted to try this case and try it I did.

The defendant was a lawyer charged with Indecent Exposure. Suffice it to say, he had a lot on the line. He knew the law and had a good lawyer to boot. The facts – they were odd indeed. He was driving a car on a public road next to a loaded school bus full of children. The driver noticed the students peering out the window, pointing at the car and making comments. It was alleged that he had his privates out and was masturbating. The driver tried to slow down and according to her, the car slowed down. When she tried to speed up, she claimed the car sped up. It was called in, he was investigated and prosecuted. None of the parents wanted the kids called as witnesses which made it more difficult.

His defense? He claimed he had a rash and was applying an ointment/prescription medication/salve to a rash and it was all a misunderstanding.

The case of the Exposed Lawyer – my first and where my tenacity at cross examination and killer cross examination finds its roots.

Killer Cross Examination is brought to you by Neil Rockind, a veteran and award-winning criminal defense lawyer. Rockind shares his insight into what he terms “killer cross examination” through his weekly podcast and blog entries. As a former assistant prosecuting attorney and radio talk show host, Rockind believes that killer cross examination is the key to winning any case:  using cross examination in way that highlights the issues and defenses that you are advocating while undermining the foundation for the government’s case.