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

1. admit to facts
2. create the picture himself/herself, through the cross examination, and
3. admit the obvious, i.e., that he is biased, or deny it, which is not credible.

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.