Eventually, I found my sweet spot, talking to jurors as I would to my mother-in-law: a smart, empathetic woman I loved and admired and who brought out the best side of me. Think about someone in your life such as this. Stephen King writes his books toward an imagined ‘ideal reader.’ Make your closing argument toward an ‘ideal juror’ who you respect and like and who brings out the best in you. If you’re not sure you’re hitting the right tone, try to practice your opening on your own mother-in-law. The advice you get from a nonlawyer can be eye-opening.”
CHICAGO, April 4- The family of an American woman killed in the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the airline, Boeing Co and Rosemount Aerospace Inc, which makes a part of the aircraft that is the focus of investigators. The complaint was filed in U.S. federal court in Chicago by the parents of Samya Stumo, who lawyers said was on...
Once you know the elements you'll have to prove to win your case, you can figure out what types of evidence will help you prove each key fact. However, not every kind of evidence can be presented in a courtroom: Complicated rules of evidence determine whether a particular document, statement, or item is admissible in court. Although you don't have to master every detail of these rules, you should do enough research to make sure that you'll be able to present the evidence you need to win.
Ensure that all media moments get maximum media coverage. Oftentimes, state LGBT groups simply didn’t have the capability to shape an opportunity for the press, pitch the story, and secure solid coverage in print and broadcast media.  As a result, Freedom to Marry created an in-house capacity to do just that.  We’d work with local organizers and attorneys to shape opportunities and maximize likelihood of coverage.  In certain states, like Wyoming, this resulted in several strong, front-page stories in the state’s most important newspaper as we rolled out a list of prominent Republicans and clergy who were in support of the freedom to marry.  We’d ensure that signers onto amicus briefs who we knew were newsworthy were available to speak to the press, sometimes holding media calls with key amici and other times offering exclusive stories to key outlets.  And we’d work closely with the legal teams, local reporters covering the legal cases, and editorial boards to ensure they had access to attorneys and plaintiffs at key moments (deadlines for filing briefs, lead-up to oral arguments, etc.), had the chance to ask questions, and understood our side of the case. And in every situation, once we’d secure a news story, positive editorial, or powerful broadcast piece, we’d amplify it through our Digital Action Center. 
I finally decided to invest in the program and start to learn "How to Win in Court"! Your program saved me. Learning the rules of court make a difference! The HOA dropped the case. Thank you for everything! I now can start my life over after 10 years of unfounded harassment from greedy people who don't care! The only regret is I did not order your program sooner. ... Becca C.
Tulane University student Lauren Fidelak said she applied to USC and UCLA and was turned down, then had an emotional breakdown and had to be hospitalized, the suit says. Her mother, Keri Fidelak, and Johnson's father, James, have also joined the suit, along with Stanford student Kalea Woods and California community college student Tyler Bendis, and his mother, Julia.
"Ensuring that fair and transparent admissions processes exist across the UT System is necessary to maintain public trust," the university has stated in admission policy documents. "Recruitment and admissions policies that are disclosed to the public and are consistent with stated university goals garners public trust that student admissions are centered on merit."
The appeal is a review for errors rather than a new trial, so the appellate court will defer to the discretion of the original trial court if an error is not clear. The initial step in making an appeal consists of the petitioner filing a notice of appeal and then sending in a brief, a written document stating reason for appeal, to the court. Decisions of the court can be made immediately after just reading the written brief, or there can also be oral arguments made by both parties involved in the appeal. The appellate court then makes the decision about what errors were made when the law was looked at more closely in the lower court. There were no errors made, the case would then end, but if the decision was reversed, the appellate court would then send the case back down to the lower court level. There, a new trial will be held and new information taken into account.
Your theory must also be based on the law. For example, if you are accused of deliberately crashing into someone’s car, your theory of the case may be that the victim was negligent when she backed into the road. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s negligence will not relieve you of liability if you deliberately hit her. Therefore, your “theory of the case” could instead be that you didn’t deliberately hit her but only negligently did, or that she deliberately backed into you.

If this is the case in the crime for which you are charged, an attorney will try to get you enrolled into one of these programs. These programs are good options in many cases because they are extremely low risk – usually once you are enrolled it is 100% up to you to be successful, but it also means that the only thing that can cause failure is you. Deferral programs usually involve some sort of community service, treatment, and or education classes as well as a period of time in which you cannot get in further trouble. In most cases, once these requirements are met, the charges against you will be dropped and sometimes, you can even file for an expungement for the history of the case ever happening to be removed from your criminal background.


The decisions that the jury makes are not put into effect until the judge makes a judgment, which is the approval to have this trial information be filed in public records. In a civil case, the judge is allowed at this time to make changes to the verdict that the jury came up with by either adding on or reducing the punishment. In criminal cases the situation is a little different, because in this case the judge does not have the authority to change the jury decision.

Paul Bergman is a Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and a recipient of a University Distinguished Teaching Award. His recent books include Reel Justice: The Courtroom Goes to the Movies (Andrews & McMeel); Trial Advocacy: Inferences, Arguments, Techniques (with Moore and Binder, West Publishing Co.); and Represent Yourself In Court and The Criminal Law Handbook (both with Berman-Barrett, Nolo). He has also published numerous articles in law journals.
Your theory must also be based on the law. For example, if you are accused of deliberately crashing into someone’s car, your theory of the case may be that the victim was negligent when she backed into the road. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s negligence will not relieve you of liability if you deliberately hit her. Therefore, your “theory of the case” could instead be that you didn’t deliberately hit her but only negligently did, or that she deliberately backed into you.

Many people presume that judges issue rulings in court based simply on the facts at hand, without public opinion playing any role at all.  However, history tells us that how judges read laws and constitutions very much reflects where public opinion is (or, at least, what they think the public will accept).   Leading up to the final Supreme Court marriage victory, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview that “there hasn’t been any major change…in which there wasn’t a groundswell among the people before the Supreme Court put its stamp of approval on the inclusion in the equality concept of people who were once left out.” 
Litigation was the pathway to the freedom to marry in many states. It often takes a judge to challenge prevailing assumptions (and even prejudice) that political decision-makers such as legislators or voters may be more unwilling to overcome. Early on, we won in state courts, first in Hawaii in the 1990s, then in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa. Later, we won in federal court, first in California, then in Utah, Oklahoma, and beyond, all the way up to the Supreme Court. In total, 25 of our final state victories (aside from the 13 final states we won at the U.S. Supreme Court) came through judicial rulings – 5 in state court and the rest in federal court.  Most of these court wins came through our movement’s legal arm – the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights – while a significant share were initiated by private attorneys and assisted by growing numbers of law firms eager to join in the progress. Several of these victories, though, were stripped away by political attack, and most of them would not have happened had we not built momentum in public understanding and even the politics of the marriage debate, creating the climate for the courts to rule in our favor and ensure that the public and elected officials would accept the outcome. 
The state caused my mother to die three months after they took her from her home and placed her in a nursing home, where she refused to eat and developed a giant bed sore. I have the evidence. I had the funeral home take pictures of her body. She weighed only 85-90 pounds all her life. When she died in the nursing home, she barely weighed 60 pounds. Before they took her from her home, the only physical problem she had was slight dementia. The trauma caused her to stop eating. 
The second service of LII Bulletin is a preview and analysis service for upcoming Supreme Court cases. Subscribers to the Bulletin receive legal analysis of upcoming Supreme Court cases with the intention of providing sophisticated yet accessible previews of the cases.[18] LII selectively recruits second- and third-year students of the Cornell Law School to comprise the LII Bulletin editorial board.[18] The Bulletin editorial board is responsible for every aspect of the journal's management, from selecting decisions for commentary to researching, writing, editing, and producing the journal content in HTML.[20]
The Las Vegas Municipal Court offers the Habitual Offender Prevention & Education (HOPE) Court. It is an alternative approach to sentencing that offers repeat offenders structured programs to try to help them rebuild their lives. The court has been featured in the local media because of its success. The target goal of HOPE Court is to decrease instances of criminal activity committed by an increasing large group of offenders who repeatedly consume large dollar amounts of city resources because they repeatedly end up back on the streets—loitering; being picked up again and again by police officers; back in city jail; back in court; and back in front of the judge. HOPE Court clients are indigent; they are not able to self-pay.
I have been reading Fight your Ticket about California laws for years and don't know what I would do without it. It has helped me win in court and know just what to ask the cop giving the ticket. It helps research and I recommend these books. Now my grand niece is getting her license and does not live in CA so I picked this up for her. I hope she reads it, it really helps get a handle on interactions with the police when you get stopped.
Tell the story behind the litigation: At the heart of litigation efforts are stories of injustice to real people.  Our campaigns have sought to use the emotional resonance of the injustice of real stories as crucial ways to make our case and grow support.  Edie Windsor in the DOMA case was a compelling figure – and with a smart media strategy behind her, her story became a face of the injustice of DOMA and the need to dismantle it once and for all.   While the media loves covering the ins and outs of the court process and politics, what moves hearts and minds are people’s actual stories. It’s certainly wise to elevate the story that’s being discussed in the litigation.  It’s also wise to identify and amplify similar stories of injustice in the state and across the country similar to the story being considered in court.   
During document production, you or the other side can request any documents that might have anything to do with the case.[9] These documents may have information you can use to help you win the case. If you discover a "smoking gun" – a document that proves the person or company you're suing is liable for your damages – you can point it out and demand the other side settle. You also may be able to file a motion for summary judgment, arguing that certain facts or issues have been settled based on that piece of evidence.[10]
Lethal Take of Sea Lions: One of the most frustrating things you can face when you have a salmon or steelhead on the line, is a sea lion taking your catch. We have been directly involved in a successful lawsuit against the U.S. Humane Society to support the ODFW plan to use force against these problem predators. This is both an ESA issue and a human safety issue for sport anglers.

8. “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Williamson v. Berry, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).


CHICAGO, April 4- The family of an American woman killed in the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the airline, Boeing Co and Rosemount Aerospace Inc, the manufacturer of a part of the aircraft that is the focus of investigators. The complaint was filed in U.S. federal court in Chicago by the parents of Samya Stumo, who lawyers...
The climate response team is made up of senior university administrators who take complaints from students via an online portal that include everything from derogatory comments made on Facebook to student organizations participating in traditions that could be perceived as insensitive. Since September 2017, it has investigated more than 100 reports of "expressions of bias" in posters, fliers, social media, whiteboards and verbal comments, among others, according to the nonprofit's data. The lawsuit says these investigations can result in formal discipline for incidents that include "wide swaths of protected expression."
RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies are not obligated to monitor any transmission made through the respective Web pages and newsgroups. However, RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor any transmission made to and for this Web site. RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies may use or disclose information of this site.
Substantial assistance is affectionately known as snitching. While it has a bad rap, it is an extremely useful tool when dealing with criminal cases. If you are not yet charged with a crime and are being investigated, providing substantial assistance can actually prevent you from being charged in some cases. If a warrant cannot be prevented with substantial assistance, charges can often be minimized and/or consequences can be reduced, often significantly.

Women in Need of Change, or WIN Court, is the opportunity for chronic women offenders to invest in themselves and their future. WIN Court is a trauma-responsive court that addresses the behaviors of chronic women offenders arrested in the city of Las Vegas. WIN Court focuses on the individual’s core issues in relationship to trauma and co-occurring mental health behaviors. These traumas contribute to their choices of substance abuse, criminal activity and recidivism. The program offers each individual woman a toolbox to address past traumas in order to move forward to a future of exciting new choices. In a safe environment, the program builds on trust and respect to be able to identify the trauma, employ strategies to normalize the symptoms and manage the related triggers and their reactions. WIN Court addresses chronic women offenders who have amassed misdemeanor offenses within the jurisdiction of the city of Las Vegas change their lives. The participants volunteer to enter into an 18-month to 24-month commitment. The basic requirements may include:
Tulane University student Lauren Fidelak said she applied to USC and UCLA and was turned down, then had an emotional breakdown and had to be hospitalized, the suit says. Her mother, Keri Fidelak, and Johnson's father, James, have also joined the suit, along with Stanford student Kalea Woods and California community college student Tyler Bendis, and his mother, Julia.
Initially the defendants appear before Municipal Court Judge Cedric Kerns weekly. The program utilizes incentives and sanctions to encourage behavioral change. Judge Kerns and the YO Court team look at each individual’s progress through the program and develops a treatment plan to address the barriers of each participant. This program has built a strong relationship with community partners and referrals are given to the appropriate community partner and to address the need of the individual defendant. To learn more about Yo Court please view this video.

In 2015, an investigation commissioned by the UT System concluded that then-President Bill Powers sometimes ordered that students touted by regents, legislators, donors and other prominent people be admitted despite objections from the admissions office. Powers said he always acted in the university's best interests, and it is an open secret that presidents of public and private universities sometimes put a thumb on the admissions scale.
Kill them with kindness. “Be nice to everyone in the courtroom. Kindness makes the world a better place, and it makes you a happier person. But if that’s not enough to convince you, consider this: Kindness makes you more likely to win your case. When jurors think you’re a good person, they’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe good motives to what you say. If they think you’re nasty or dishonest, they’ll discount everything that comes out of your mouth.
Defendants, civil rights organizations, public interest organizations, and government public officials can all set up an account to pay for litigation costs and legal expenses. These legal defense funds can have large membership counts where the members contribute to the fund. Unlike legal financing from legal financing companies, legal defense funds provide a separate account for litigation rather than a one-time cash advancement, nevertheless, both are used for purposes of financing litigation and legal costs.
×