Quoted, digested and paraphrased by Steve Posner

• Repetition has never injured the persuasive process (p. 195).
• The courtroom is not a mere arena for rational combat. It seethes with psychological variants, and the lawyer who is unaware of them is wandering about blind to the forces which swirl around him. Therefore, witness preparation is more than ensuring the witness knows the facts. The witness must be told what to wear and how to behave. No matter how he is badgered on cross, he must be polite to his tormentor. The jury is better disposed to a gentleman who projects an aura of decency and sincere good behavior (p. 301)
• Don't let your client make a decision of strategy contrary to your judgment. If it goes wrong, the client will blame you for letting him make it (p. 225).
• A criminal defense lawyer cannot avoid entering denials of the accusations, but to avoid repeating the charges and revivifying their impact on the jury, should paraphrase the original testimony so carefully as to deprive it of emotional sting. But be sure to deny everything that must be denied (p. 286).
• Remain imperturbable in the center of the storm. Don't panic. The jury will notice or enlarge your disappointment or distress. Remember: The Chinese word "crisis" is a combination of the ideograms for "danger" and "opportunity" (pp. 163, 296).
• A completely outrageous accusation, however great the potential penalty, hurts less than one with a grain of truth. Even the judge's death sentence did not make the Rosenbergs hate him as much as did his slur on them as parents (p. 411).

• Never accuse the judge of not understanding. Instead, assert that you didn't make yourself clear. A public challenge to the judge's comprehension is humiliating, if true, and inflammatory, if not. It is, at worst, a harmless hypocrisy, and part of the social graces (p. 325).
• If you compliment the trial judge on the record, the appellate court may throw your words back at you (p. 329).
• Unlike in most state courts (in which such conduct may be reversible error), a federal judge can ask questions to develop the facts and even comment outright on any portion of the evidence. He can even tell the jury how the evidence struck him, whom he believed or disbelieved, provided only that he advise the jury that they are not bound by his expressions of such views (pp. 77, 425).

• Criminal defense attorneys should limit opening statements to discreet generalities such as pleas for an open mind until all the evidence has been presented. The reason is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Until the defense attorney knows how much and how impressive is the government's evidence, he should not commit himself to disproving particular matters (p. 59).

• In the course of an evidentiary objection before the jury, don't say the evidence is "damaging" when what you really mean is "prejudicial" (p. 177).

• Get all your evidence in before resting your case. Don't hold any back. Getting additional evidence admitted, even if newly discovered, is very hard (p. 321).

• It is best to begin and end with the strongest witnesses (p. 203).
• In a criminal defense, present character witnesses if you can get them (p. 318).
• If it will help tell a better story, ask the judge to let you suspend a witness's testimony temporarily in order to place another witness's illustrative testimony in the most persuasive sequence. It's within a judge's discretion to allow this (p. 100).

• A cross-examiner's questions should be so designed that they call for no more than an answer of "Yes" or "No" or "I don't remember." If the question encompasses a number of facts, it should conclude with "Is that correct?" or something similar. If a question calls for explanation, the hostile witness takes advantage of the open door to repeat or embellish previous testimony or extricate himself from an embarrassing attack. Therefore, never ask "Why?" on cross. If there is a lie to excise from the witness' mind, he must not be permitted to blunt the scalpel with wordiness (p. 216).
• A cross-examiner should know when to quit. Asking that final question may let the witness rehabilitate herself.
• It is a cardinal sin, on cross-examination, to ask a witness to repeat direct testimony. The lawyer who takes the witness over ground already covered in the hope of finding a crevice, usually winds up emphasizing harmful testimony and still groping for an opening. However, if, on cross, a hostile witness repeats his direct testimony almost verbatim, you can use that to show that his testimony was rehearsed, and impliedly, insincere and you can use that in summation (pp. 156, 339).
• Overbearing cross-examination can be counterproductive. Jurors do not like to see a witness, especially a woman, crushed, unless already proven so venal that no punishment is too much (p. 300).
• Vanity has a lower boiling point than honor. If you want to anger a witness, attack his or her personality, sex appeal, or idiosyncratic behavior (p. 303).
• When a witness leaves the beaten path of his preparation, he may get lost in thickets of contradiction. When he attempts to find his way out by improvisation, he usually loses all sense of direction. No one knows what triumphs may lie ahead for the cross-examiner in such a situation (p. 128)
• A cross-examiner should aim for the jugular. Bickering over minor matters is unproductive even if successful (p. 138).

• Pleading the Fifth Amendment can do a defendant a lot more harm than good (p. 294).
• In a criminal trial, it is statistically better for the defendant to testify and risk cross-examination than to remain silent and forfeit a denial of the accusation. Of those convicted a large percentage did not testify. Of those acquitted, a large percentage did. But prepare the defendant thoroughly (p. 83-84).

• Summation is a unique art. The objective is to marshal the facts in the most persuasive way but the style is as varied as men's personalities. All good styles derive from sincerity and inner emotion. Don't talk at jurors; communicate to their minds and hearts. There must be a design for easy comprehension. There is no opportunity to stop or reconsider, or to reread. If the oral flow is too fast or involved, the jury cannot catch up. Attention is cut and the juror surrenders and withdraws, pretending to listen, when his thoughts are elsewhere. If the lawyer's eyes are buried in his script, he will never observe that he is not communicating (p. 328-29).
• One of the devices of summation is to repeat testimony already analyzed as a launching point for new arguments. This is the technique of summaries within the summation. Like a tune which becomes more enjoyable as it becomes more familiar, facts repeated often enough acquire a glow of recognition (p. 357)

• In seeking a light sentence for a criminal defendant, stress the human aspects of the case. These are more effective than sophisticated argument (pp. 398, 408).

END