05 July

Sticky

Impeaching (Attacking Witness’s Credibility) with a Prior Inconsistent Statement

Impeachment is the art of attacking a testifying witness's credibility or truthfulness at trial. One of the most common forms of impeachment during cross-examination at trial is with a prior inconsistent statement, such as deposition or affidavit testimony. The objective of impeachment is to establish that the witness is not a trustworthy witness, hence the reason it is referred to as attacking the witness’s credibility! A prior inconsistent statement made by a testifying witness is a great way to attack that witness’s credibility at trial. See Elmer v. State, 114 So.3d 198, 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). (“It is axiomatic...

27 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Jury Trial Considerations: Directed Verdict and the Verdict Form

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

Previously, I discussed a motion for directed verdict and, then, a motion to set aside a jury’s verdict. This is an important procedural vehicle to know because a party opposing a claim generally always moves for a direct verdict. In some instances, the court reserves ruling on the directed verdict to see how the jury decides the case. If the jury enters a verdict in favor of the party moving for a directed verdict (e.g., the defendant) then the court does not need to rule on the motion for directed verdict (it becomes moot). Recently, I wrote an article about a...

19 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Note on Discovery in Litigation

Posted by David Adelstein

in Discovery, Evidence

Here is a quick note on discovery in litigation (e.g., document requests, depositions, interrogatories). An objective of discovery is to discover information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In other words, just because the discovery appears irrelevant does not necessarily mean that pursuing such discovery will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By taking a more liberal approach to the discovery process, hopefully, some of the unfortunate gamesmanship that occurs during discovery is eliminated or reduced. In particular, parties should not be able to unilaterally dictate what they believe is relevant to...

16 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Laying the Foundation of Photographic Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

Photographs make good evidence as they illustrate what a witness is testifying about or conveying. I want to show the witness a relevant photograph, but the witness did not take the photograph. How do I get this photograph into evidence? No different than any other evidence, the proper foundation needs to be laid to admit a photograph into evidence. Metropolitan Dade County v. Zapata, 601 So.2d 239, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). “[A]ny witness with knowledge that the photograph is a FAIR and ACCURATE REPRESENTATION may lay the necessary foundation for admission of a photograph.” Scarlett v. Ouellette, 948 So.2d 859, 863 (Fla....

07 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Introducing Character Evidence of Prior Bad Acts in a Civil Case

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

"Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Fla.Stat. s. 90.401. I have previously discussed that evidence needs to be relevant for it to be admissible but that not all relevant evidence is admissible (e.g., if the probative value of that evidence is outweighed by unfair prejudice, etc., then the relevant evidence is not admissible). When is evidence of a person's character ever relevant (such as the character of a plaintiff or defendant) to prove or disprove a material fact in a civil case? Generally speaking, it is not relevant and, even if it was relevant, the...

28 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Purpose of Closing Argument

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

We talked about the purpose of opening statements. Now, let’s talk about the purpose of closing argument. One of my favorite all-time shows is Law and Order. Jack McCoy can certainly deliver a closing argument like no other where the purpose of his closing argument always seems abundantly clear. The purpose of closing argument is to help the jury understand the evidence presented to the law. See Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000). It serves as the final opportunity for the lawyer to fully connect his/her client’s theme of the case (possibly explained during opening) based on...

19 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Purpose of Opening Statements

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

We’ve all seen movies that reflect the power of an opening statement. Remember the movies “The Devil’s Advocate” or “Philadelphia” or “A Few Good Men?” All of these show powerful opening statements with a purpose. Remember the movie "My Cousin Vinny?" This movie does not reflect a powerful opening statement with a purpose, although it sure is funny! “The purpose of opening statements is to outline what an attorney expects the evidence will establish, and control of opening statements is within the trial court’s discretion.” Bush v. State, 809 So.2d 107, 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The opening statement allows a party’s...

15 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Inconsistent Verdict Form – Make Sure to Timely Object

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

The verdict form is a very important aspect of civil jury trials. This is the form the jury fills out during deliberation to determine liability and damages. Previously, I explained the difference between a general verdict form and a special interrogatory verdict form and the importance of timely objections to the verdict form. Be sure to consider and review (and, object, if need be) the type of verdict form submitted to the jury as well as the verdict form filled out by the jury (especially with a special interrogatory verdict form). With a special interrogatory verdict form, there is the possibility...

09 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Applying the Tipsy Coachman Doctrine

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

In a previous article, I discussed the appellate doctrine known as the tipsy coachman doctrine, which stands for the principle that an appellate court can affirm a trial court even if the trial court reached the right result (supported by the record) but for the wrong reasons. This doctrine allows an appellee (party prevailing in the trial court and responding to appeal) that is arguing to affirm the trial court’s ruling to present any argument on appeal supported by the record even if that argument was not raised in the trial court. Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA,...

01 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Pinning the Poor Against the Rich at Trial…Nope due to the Presumed Prejudice!

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

We all like to root for the underdog and want the underdog to succeed. In this regard, there is something compelling about pinning the poor against the rich. We perhaps seek redemption for the poor. So, how does this play out in a jury trial? The answer is it does not and should not. Why; because of the presumed prejudice to the rich and the tendency to punish the deep pocket. By eliciting this evidence, a party is exposing itself to a mistrial. “Florida has a long-standing rule that no reference should be made to the wealth or poverty of a party,...