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.
NEW YORK, April 5- A federal judge in Manhattan on Friday rejected Expedia Inc's request for an injunction that would have required United Airlines to continue providing fare data for flights after Sept. 30, when the companies' contract ends. An injunction would have required United, part of Chicago- based United Continental Holdings Inc, to provide Expedia with...
A little respect goes a long way in the courtroom, particularly when you are representing yourself. Address the judge as "your honor," not as "Judge Smith" or "Mr. Smith." Try your best to be polite to your opponent, not demeaning or petty. Showing respect for people and procedures in the courtroom will help you gain the respect of the judge, which will make your day in court a more pleasant experience.
Try to maintain a subtle, composed smile at all times. “Practice in the mirror. You don’t want to look like a crazy person. But you might discover that a subtle, practiced smile looks friendlier and exudes more confidence than your natural expression does at rest. There’s truth to that 1980s deodorant slogan, ‘Never let them see you sweat.’ Your star witness buckles under cross-examination? Smile your subtle, practiced smile. Unexpected testimony shocks you? Subtle smile. If you frown or rock backward in surprise, a juror might conclude that you think your case has been undermined. If you keep your neutral, subtle smile, it instead says: ‘Everything’s going my way, just as I expected, all part of my master plan.’”
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.
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.
Particularly in the United States, plaintiffs and defendants who lack financial resources for litigation or other attorney's fees may be able to obtain legal financing. Legal financing companies can provide a cash advance to litigants in return for a share of the ultimate settlement or award. If the case ultimately loses, the litigant does not have to pay any of the money funded back. Legal financing is different from a typical bank loan in that the legal financing company does not look at credit history or employment history. Litigants do not have to repay the cash advance with monthly payments, but do have to fill out an application so that the legal financing company can review the merits of the case.

The official ruling of a lawsuit can be somewhat misleading because post-ruling outcomes are often not listed on the internet. For example, in the case of William J. Ralph Jr. v. Lind-Waldock & Company[4] (September 1999), one would assume that Mr. Ralph lost the case when in fact, upon review of the evidence, it as found that Mr. Ralph was correct in his assertion that improper activity took place on the part of Lind-Waldock, and Mr. Ralph settled with Lind-Waldock.[5]
×