Épisodes

  • Crossing The Angelic Defendant

    Crossing The Angelic Defendant
    May 29 2025
    Hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by personal injury attorney Susie Injijian, as well as actor and writer Sara Taylor.Watch as Susie cross-examines Sara, portraying a sympathetic kindergarten teacher whose vehicle struck a Guatemalan-born pedestrian.Listen in as Susie challenges Sara, and we break down how to confront bias in the courtroom.What’s covered in this episode: Talking ‘money grab’ and other biases in voir direWho to call to the stand when the damages aren’t visibleHow to keep a crying witness from derailing your crossThe tech savvy way to make sure your word choice sticksWhat you need to know to blow your witness’ testimony out of the waterTime Stamps00:00 What’s Cross Lab?4:38 The importance of being in a plaintiff friendly county—and how to figure that out8:13 Broaching the “b-word” in voir dire16:35 What to do when your client’s damages aren't visible24:15 Mock Case Overview: Lopez vs Maddison30:29 Susie’s Cross: Crossing an “angelic” defendant49:02 How to handle (and stay in control of) when the water works start1:19:52 The key touchstones that will help you flip your witness1:27:18 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like thisTo get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com Key Insights: How to Cross-Examine a Sympathetic Defendant Without Alienating the JuryWhen the opposing party is likable — a kindergarten teacher, a young parent, a community volunteer — the instinct to soften your cross can cost your client the case. But attacking them head-on will cost you the jury. The answer is neither soft nor aggressive. It's factual.In this episode, award-winning trial attorney Susie Injijian demonstrates how a calm, fact-based, step-by-step approach disarms a sympathetic defendant more effectively than confrontation ever could. By respecting the witness's humanity while methodically walking through undeniable facts, she removes the jury's impulse to protect the defendant — because there's nothing to protect her from. As guest witness Sara Taylor noted from the stand: "There wasn't really anything you were giving me that I felt like I had the right to fight you on."The key: set an intention for how you want the jury to feel when you sit down. Not angry at the defendant. Not sorry for her. Just clear on what happened and what it cost your client.Why Confirming the Defendant's Own Story Builds Trust — and Gets Better AdmissionsMost attorneys avoid validating anything the defense has put forward. Injijian does the opposite. When she confirmed that the sun was in the defendant's eyes — a fact that could arguably help the defense — it had a surprising effect: the witness relaxed and became more cooperative.Sara Taylor, playing the defendant, explained it this way: "She sees me. She's not trying to accuse me of using my phone. For you to confirm my story was actually really successful in getting me on your side." That comfort led to a witness who stopped guarding her answers and simply agreed with everything that followed — including the most damaging admissions.This is the principle behind what Trial Haus calls a "Yes, And" cross: rather than fighting the witness's version of events, you build on it. You own their story, and in doing so, you control where it goes.Using Sensory Details and Word Choice to Paint a Picture the Jury Can't ForgetInjijian didn't ask the defendant to summarize the accident. She reconstructed it sensation by sensation: the thud at the front of the car, the body becoming airborne, the impact against the windshield, the body flung to the ground. Then the tire rolling over something hard — "like you'd hit a rock or something." And then the reveal: that was the plaintiff's dog.Every word was chosen to put the jury in the driver's seat. The witness couldn't deny any of it, and she didn't try. As Sara Taylor put it from an actor's perspective: "There was no way for me as the witness to not relive exactly what happened. It was completely laid out for me in every sense."The lesson for attorneys: don't summarize. Reconstruct. One fact per question. One sensation at a time. Let the jury see it, hear it, and feel it through the defendant's own confirmation.How a Dog Can Humanize Your Plaintiff and Cut Through Jury BiasIn a case where the plaintiff is an immigrant carpenter and the defendant is a beloved local kindergarten teacher, racial and socioeconomic bias can quietly tilt the jury. Injijian's strategy to level the playing field was unexpected: she focused on the plaintiff's dog.By establishing that Mr. Lopez was cradling his injured, bleeding dog Tonki in his arms after the collision — and that this was why he waved off the ambulance and said "I'm okay" — she gave the jury a universal point of connection. As Injijian explained: "People understand the love of a dog. That puts us all on the same level. We see past ethnicity and demographics when we see a person holding his bleeding dog."The dog ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    1 h et 37 min
  • The Cop That Saw Nothing

    The Cop That Saw Nothing
    May 15 2025
    Hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by criminal defense and civil rights attorney Bruce Ringstrom, and plaintiff’s personal injury attorney Fred Bryant.Watch as they put Officer Brown (played by Steve) on the stand and challenge his version of events to prove their client did not knowingly help her son evade arrest.This episode is based on a real case from a listener looking for new perspectives on their upcoming trial. To submit your case for an upcoming episode click HERE!What’s covered in this episode: How to turn minimal evidence into explosive revelationsCreating real-time surplus realityWhy breaking the #1 “baby lawyer” rule can can pay offWhat to do when a witness doesn’t give you what you want The “who’s the jerk now?” method—this is gold!Time Stamps00:00 What’s Cross Lab?9:24 The blurred line advantages of working with family in your law firm15:26 Mock Case Overview: State of Idaho vs. Darla Roberts17:08 How to cross a witness with minimal evidence—and uncover explosive surprises (the good kind)20:00 Bruce’s cross: Building surplus reality38:53 Why it’s worth breaking a “baby lawyer” rule40:25 The top fall back when a witness doesn’t give you what you want49:52 An easy technique to reset and rattle a witness at the same time53:44 Fred’s cross: The “who’s the jerk now?” approach1:08:25 Why tagging your questions with a “isn’t that correct?” can show a lack of confidence1:13:24 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like thisTo get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.comKey Insights from This EpisodeHow to Build Foundational Chapters in Cross-Examination Before Getting to the Key AdmissionsGreat cross-examinations don't start with the kill shot. Both attorneys in this episode demonstrated the discipline of building foundational chapters — the predicate questions that may feel slow but make the payoff devastating. Bruce Ringstrom spent his entire 15 minutes establishing the officer's role, what evidence he reviewed, the layout of the scene, and the timeline — never once reaching his hardest questions. As he explained afterward, with a big witness, you can spend an hour on predicate questions before you pivot to the material that changes the gravity in the courtroom.Fred Bryant took the same approach from a different angle, methodically establishing the officer's training, his duty to know the elements of a crime, and the sequence of how he arrived at the scene. Both attorneys acknowledged they never "got to the meat" — and both made clear that was the point. The foundational chapters are what make the later admissions land. Without them, you're asking a jury to trust conclusions they haven't been walked to. With them, the jury arrives at the conclusion before you do.Using Surplus Reality to Prepare Cross-Examination Questions with Limited DiscoveryCriminal defense attorneys often go to trial with far less discovery than their civil counterparts — no depositions, limited reports, sometimes just a police narrative and whatever the officer remembers. Bruce Ringstrom introduced the concept of "surplus reality" as a way to prepare in those conditions: imagine the exchange with the witness, consider every possible answer they could give, and identify what's logically required even without direct evidence. If the case involves a squad car, you can safely assume it has a gas pedal. If officers were outside a trailer, you can reason through what they could and couldn't see from that position.This approach turns preparation into a creative exercise. Bruce used it to build an entire line of questioning around the timing of backup arriving — reasoning that if officers were already en route and arrived quickly, Darla Roberts had almost no opportunity to do what the prosecution claimed she did. The officer even helped Bruce's theory by volunteering that he'd called for backup early. That's the power of surplus reality: when you've mapped every possible answer, even the unexpected ones become useful.How Consent to Enter a Home Without a Warrant Can Prove Your Client Had Nothing to HideOne of the strongest moments in Bruce Ringstrom's cross came from a deceptively simple sequence. He established that the officer had no search warrant for Kit Frost's residence. He established that the officer had no arrest warrant listing that address. And then he established that despite all of that, Darla Roberts — through the household — let the officers in voluntarily. Bruce then delivered the line that locked the admission: "Whether you have probable cause or not, they let you in the door, correct?"That sequence does double work. On the legal side, it puts the consent question on record. But narratively, it paints a picture for the jury: a woman who opens her door to police is not a woman hiding a fugitive in the backyard shed. Olivia Espinosa called it one of the strongest moments of the episode because it was so clear — Bruce ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    1 h et 20 min
  • The “It’s All About Me" Witness

    The “It’s All About Me" Witness
    May 1 2025
    Hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by personal injury and family law attorney Shane Henry, as well as noted TV, film and theater actor, producer and director Jean Bruce Scott.Watch as Shane cross-examines Jean, who plays this episode’s mock witness—a devoted grandma testifying on behalf of her son who’s seeking primary custody of his 2 children.Shane challenges Jean’s claims in this masterclass of constructive cross-examination.What’s covered in this episode: The funnel that traps the witness and triggers the jury’s ‘aha!’ momentWhat Bryan Cranston and Tom Hanks share—and why it’s essential for trial lawyersHow a fact-focused cross can open doors you didn’t expectThe low-key cue that signals you’ve got the opposing witness under your controlA simple way to collect testimony gold—ready for closing, ASAPTime Stamps00:00 What’s Cross Lab?2:55 The real power of constructive cross—for your witness, judge, and jury10:15 Structuring your questions to box in the witness and create an ‘aha!’ moment for the jury17:45 The “secret” to performing that hooks your audience and keeps you credible21:25 What successful big-money verdict attorneys have in common29:30 Mock Case Overview: Stills vs. Stills34:34 Shane’s Cross: Building a clear picture—one fact at a time57:14 A subtle cue that proves you're steering the witness59:56 How to collect key testimony—so your closing organizes itself1:09:17 Tips for managing performance anxiety1:13:41 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like thisTo get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com Key Insights from This EpisodeHow to Cross-Examine a Sympathetic Witness in Family Court Without Alienating the JudgeIn family law bench trials, the judge is both your audience and your decision-maker — and judges don't want to watch an attorney bully a grandmother. Shane Henry approached his cross of Sandra Stills, a retired schoolteacher and devoted grandparent, with that reality front and center. He opened by establishing her love for her grandchildren, letting her face light up while talking about her family. He affirmed that she's reliable, that they can count on her, that family comes first. Every early question was designed to make her feel heard — not cornered.This is the constructive cross at work in one of its most practical settings. As Shane explained, if a judge sees a lawyer pushing on a little kid at the playground, their instinct is to protect the child. The same dynamic applies to a sympathetic witness in the courtroom. The goal is never to destroy a grandmother's credibility — it's to redirect the court's focus back to the two parents and away from a well-meaning but overreaching grandparent. Shane did that by gathering facts, not forcing conclusions, and saving his sharpest arguments for closing.How the "Yes Train" Works to Lower a Witness's Defenses in Cross-ExaminationOne of the clearest demonstrations of the Yes, And Method in this episode came from how Shane Henry built momentum through agreement. By starting with indisputable, flattering facts — you love your family, Jonathan is successful, his work is demanding — he created a pattern of "yes" responses that became almost reflexive. The witness was nodding along, expanding on her answers, even volunteering information Shane hadn't asked for. Steve and Olivia call this the "yes train," and it's a phenomenon they see consistently in their cross-examination simulations: once a witness enters an agreeable rhythm, they have to consciously resist it — and most don't.The power of the yes train is that it works on the witness's psychology without confrontation. Sandra Stills wasn't fighting Shane because there was nothing to fight about. He was complimenting her son, affirming her role, acknowledging her dedication. By the time the questions shifted to Jonathan being on the road 20 or more days per month and being unreachable during his son's medical emergency, the witness had already confirmed the facts that made those conclusions inevitable. She'd built the case against her own position — willingly and conversationally.How to Expose a Double Standard Between Parents in a Custody Case Using Only FactsThe strongest sequence in Shane Henry's cross came from a deceptively simple comparison. He established that Jonathan, as a venture capitalist, traveled more than 20 days per month — over 60% of the time. He established that during Garrett's medical emergency, Jonathan was out of town and couldn't come. He established that Rebecca, the mother Sandra had called "unreliable," arrived at the hospital within 90 minutes of her son being admitted. And he established that Jonathan didn't arrive until that evening. Shane never argued the conclusion. He just placed the facts side by side and stopped.For a judge hearing a bench trial, that sequence reframes the entire case. Sandra's direct testimony had painted Rebecca as career-focused and ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    1 h et 22 min
  • Cross Pollination: Storytelling that Makes a Difference—From Prison to the Courtroom

    Cross Pollination: Storytelling that Makes a Difference—From Prison to the Courtroom
    Apr 17 2025
    We’re calling this special episode of Cross Lab…Cross Pollination!Hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are bringing together their community of theater makers and professional storytellers for a powerful conversation.Our guests—Cecelia Kouma, Mabelle Reynoso, and Arturo Medina from Playwrights Project—are producers, actors, playwrights, and educators who teach playwriting in prisons.Tune in as they share their work, their wisdom, and storytelling techniques that can transform how you build narratives in the courtroom.Instagram @playwrightsprojectWhat’s covered in this episode: How to turn facts into a story—even if you don’t think you're a storyteller4 story kickstarters for a compelling narrativeThe essential hook that makes your listener root for your clientWhy “falling in love” with your client is non-negotiableThe no-brainer step to make your opening statement click with your fact-findersTime Stamps00:00 What’s this special episode of Cross Lab all about?5:23 About Playwrights Project and their work in carceral spaces11:29 The power of storytelling for healing and transformation17:32 Where to start—4 storytelling lifelines when you’re buried under a mountain of facts25:30 How to unlock your client’s real story—and why they’re giving you the “safe” version32:40 What the best attorneys we’ve seen have in common39:23 The #1 thing your listener needs for a story to land and feel real49:00 How to make sure your story is fleshed out and accessible for anyone (perfect for an opening statement!)1:06:03 Don’t think you're a storyteller? Here’s the cure.To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com Key Insights from This EpisodeHow Sensory Details Make a Case Narrative Come Alive for a JuryOne of the most practical storytelling techniques discussed in this episode came from Arturo Medina, who teaches playwriting to inmates at Centinela State Prison and Donovan Correctional Facility. When he helps a new writer develop a story, he starts with sensory questions: What does your neighborhood smell like? What does it taste like? What does it look like in the morning versus at night? The writers start answering — chile relleno in the morning, carne asada at night — and suddenly the details flow. They're painting a picture without being asked to "tell their story."This is exactly the technique trial consultants and storytelling coaches use with attorneys preparing opening statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments. A jury doesn't connect with a summary of events. They connect when they can smell, see, and feel the moment. When Arturo's students start using sensory language, they stop narrating and start transporting — and that's the same shift an attorney needs to make when presenting a case. Abstract facts become lived experience. The audience stops observing and starts participating.Why Slowing Down a Key Moment Step by Step Is More Powerful Than Showing the Whole EventCecilia Cuma, executive director of Playwrights Project, shared a story from Olivia Espinosa's time teaching playwriting in juvenile hall. A young man wanted to write about the day his cousin was shot in a park while he was standing nearby. The program doesn't allow violence on stage, so Olivia guided him to slow the moment down and recount it in incremental steps: a car passing that didn't look familiar, a window rolling down, a gun appearing, a bullet grazing his ear, turning to see his cousin fall. The audience never sees the act of violence — but they feel every second of it because the writer walked them through it one detail at a time.This technique translates directly to trial work. Attorneys don't get to show a jury the moment of injury, the accident, or the crime. They have to reconstruct it through testimony and narrative. When that reconstruction moves fact by fact in slow, deliberate sequence — without jumping to conclusions or editorializing — the jury doesn't just hear what happened. They relive it alongside the witness. The incremental approach also prevents the attorney from projecting opinions onto the facts. The facts do the work. The jury arrives at the emotional truth on their own.How to Build Trust with a Traumatized Client Who Doesn't Want to Share Their StoryArturo Medina brought a perspective to this episode that no attorney or consultant could — he's been on the other side of the table. As a young man navigating the justice system, he had attorneys who didn't listen, who walked in with a predetermined agenda, and who made him feel like he had to present a "fake version" of himself for them to use in court. It didn't work, he said, because it wasn't authentic. The story they told wasn't his story. He also had a public defender who simply listened to everything, earned his trust, and fought for him — and that was the one who succeeded.The lesson for attorneys is that trust has to come before strategy. People who've been through trauma often ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    1 h et 13 min
  • Expert with no expertise

    Expert with no expertise
    Apr 3 2025
    In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by plaintiff’s attorney Federico Lathrop and estate and trust attorney Mike Hackard.Watch as they cross-examine Steve, who plays an occupational consultant and defense expert witness. They’ll challenge his opinion on the employability of the plaintiff, whose medical assessments reveal severe limitations that impact his ability to work.Instagram:@hackard_law@fedelawyerWhat’s covered in this episode: How to balance expectations and earn trust with emotionally charged clientsThe double edge sword of multi-fact questionsQuestions that expose biases—no matter what the witness answersWhat successful lawyers you love have in commonWhy the word “AND” is the invitation you want to give to your juryTime Stamps00:00 What’s Cross Lab?11:11 Balancing trust and expectations with clients experiencing trauma and grief19:42 Mock Case Overview: Grayson vs. NextGen and Samuel Dent21:55 Federico’s Cross: Exposing biases—no matter what the witness answers40:14 What looping aka repeating your witness’s words does to an expert45:09 The power (and danger) of stacking multiple facts into one question49:28 The common traits successful lawyers have53:12 Mike Cross: Word selection that paints a picture1:11:48 The magic of "AND" for your jury1:13:12 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like thisTo get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.comKey Insights from This EpisodeHow to Expose a Defense Expert's Financial Bias Using Their Own Testimony HistoryFederico Lathrop opened his cross of occupational consultant James Tuft by establishing a single, devastating number: of approximately 118 cases in which Tuft had testified as an expert, 107 were for the defense. That's 95% of his career spent being paid by insurance companies, employers, and defense firms. Tuft tried to deflect — "my findings are completely separate from who's hiring me" — but Federico didn't argue. He simply looped Tuft's own words back: "Although you give the same service regardless of who retains you, throughout your career, 95% of the time you have been testifying as an expert for the defense." The witness had no factual ground to fight on.What made this sequence effective wasn't aggression — it was math. Federico didn't accuse Tuft of being biased. He laid out the numbers and let the jury do the arithmetic. By the time he asked whether Tuft's livelihood depended on defense firms continuing to hire him, the conclusion was already obvious to anyone listening. The witness denied it, but the denial only made him look defensive. This is a foundational chapter that any plaintiff's attorney can adapt: establish the ratio, let the expert claim independence, and then let the numbers speak louder than the claim.How to Build a "Proper vs. Biased Evaluation" Framework to Cross-Examine Any Expert WitnessOne of Federico Lathrop's most effective structural choices was building a framework before ever touching the expert's actual report. He walked James Tuft through agreeing that a proper case evaluation must be objective, then impartial, then complete — stacking each term one at a time so the trilogy stuck. Then he defined the opposite: a biased evaluation is one where a paid expert cherry-picks information supporting their desired opinion while ignoring contradicting evidence. Tuft agreed to every definition because each one, in isolation, was unobjectionable.The power of this approach is that the attorney never has to accuse the expert of anything. The framework does the work. Once the jury has heard "objective, impartial, and complete" repeated multiple times — and has heard the expert agree that violating those standards risks misleading the jury about the plaintiff's true condition — every subsequent flaw in the report is measured against a standard the expert himself endorsed. Federico noted afterward that his next chapters would have walked through specific flaws in the report, and each one would have landed against the framework he'd already built. The jury doesn't need the attorney to argue bias. They just need the framework and the facts.How to Dismantle an Expert's Credentials by Exposing What They Didn't DoMichael Hackard's cross took a different approach from Federico's — where Federico built the bias framework, Hackard systematically cataloged everything the expert failed to do. Tuft never physically examined the plaintiff. Never met him. Never tested his actual capabilities. Never observed him trying to work. Never consulted the California Workforce Development Agency. Never spoke with local job placement specialists. Never interviewed California employers. His entire analysis was, as Hackard distilled it, "based upon paper review." Each fact was delivered as a short, one-fact question — and each one landed a quiet but cumulative blow.What made Hackard's approach devastating was its simplicity. He didn't argue that Tuft was ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    1 h et 18 min
  • Emotionally charged divorced couple with Bibi Badejo

    Emotionally charged divorced couple with Bibi Badejo
    Mar 21 2025
    In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by barrister and advocacy coach Bibi Badejo.Watch Bibi cross-examine both Steve and Olivia, who portray a divorced couple where neither party has clean hands. Bibi skillfully challenges each of their stories and their roles in a complex, multi-suit case involving large sums of money, kids and old wounds.What’s covered in this episode: The foundation you can lay that boxes any witness in—and pays off big timeA go-to framework for defending your client (even when their actions make zero sense)What your listener is really thinking when you’re sticking a witness to the questionThe sneaky way to trap a witness in their own admissionsHow to slice away a witness's opinion from the real evidenceTime Stamps00:00 What’s Cross Lab?2:20 The question to ask yourself that steers the judge and jury where you want them3:14 How to adjust your language for judges and juries—and what juries don't want from you6:18 A genius ‘common sense’ strategy to defend your client’s actions (even when they don’t make sense)17:00 Mock Case Overview: Butler vs. Butler19:38 Bibi’s Cross on Dane Butler: One fact questions that lay the foundation for a big payoff!38:18 Painting a picture with facts that corner the witness and let their discomfort tell your story.43:01 How starting with general questions can trap a witness with their own admissions48:28 What your listener is thinking when you hold a witness to the question55:26 Cross of Lily: Expertly separating a witness's opinion from the real evidence1:20:02 Repetition that works for you—no matter what the witness saysBibi’s website: https://www.theadvocacycoach.com/The Advocacy Podcast https://www.theadvocacypodcast.com/To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com Key Insights from This EpisodeHow to Cross-Examine an Emotionally Charged Witness Without Losing Control of the ExaminationBibi Badejo demonstrated throughout both cross-examinations in this episode that controlling an emotional witness isn't about matching their energy — it's about staying steady while they escalate. She described her approach as being like a steamroller: constant, even pressure that never lets up and never gets flustered by unexpected answers. When Steve, playing Dane Butler, started giving long explanations and deflecting, Bibi kept her questions short, repeated them when they weren't answered, and simply moved forward when she had what she needed. The technique worked because every time the witness rambled and she calmly re-asked the same question, the listener's takeaway wasn't about what the witness said — it was that the witness was avoiding the answer.Steve confirmed from the witness chair that this was deeply uncomfortable. He knew he owed a yes or no, and every time Bibi pressed for one, she gained more control. The key insight for attorneys is that short questions do double work against emotional witnesses: they're easier for the attorney to remember and repeat, and they make any long-winded answer from the witness look evasive by contrast. As Olivia noted, when a jury or judge hears a three-word question followed by a two-minute non-answer, they stop listening to the witness and start trusting the attorney.How to Set Up Win-Win Questions Where Every Answer Helps Your CaseOne of Bibi Badejo's most effective patterns in this episode was crafting questions where she won regardless of the answer. The clearest example came at the end of her cross of Dane Butler, when she asked whether he thought it was fair that despite Lily having the children over 70% of the time, she should only receive half the marital assets. If he said no, that was an admission she could use directly. If he said yes — which he did — she had a sound bite for closing that made him look unreasonable. Either answer served her narrative. She stopped right there, telling Steve and Olivia afterward: "I would end it there because I'm going to use that in my submissions."The same pattern appeared earlier when she pressed Dane on whether $20,000 was a lot of money. His answer — that it wasn't, given his line of work — made him seem out of touch to anyone listening. Bibi didn't need him to agree it was a lot. His dismissal was more useful than his agreement would have been. The lesson for attorneys is to stop designing questions around getting a specific answer and instead design them so that every possible response advances your narrative. As Steve put it during the debrief: "You put him in a box that no matter which way he went, he loses."How to Use Proportionality and Math to Undermine a Witness's JustificationWhen Bibi crossed Olivia as Lily Butler, she faced a sympathetic witness with a compelling emotional defense: she moved the money to protect her children from a gambling addict. Rather than attacking that emotional logic head-on, Bibi dismantled it with math. She established that the largest single ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    1 h et 29 min
  • Toxicologist and expert witness for the state on contaminated evidence

    Toxicologist and expert witness for the state on contaminated evidence
    Mar 6 2025
    In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by plaintiff’s attorney Mark Choate and criminal defense/DUI attorneys Chuck Rathburn and Bruce Ringstrom.Watch them cross-examine Olivia, who portrays a toxicologist and expert witness on behalf of the state. They’ll challenge the expert’s opinion on the validity of the BAC and blood draw procedures.What’s covered in this episode: How crossing an expert witness can change your word selectionThe hidden role gender can play in your cross-examinationAn easy demonstrative to illustrate percentage points for your juryUsing the expert to expose mishandlings in the case and create reasonable doubtWhat taking a moment to pause can do to a witnessThe trap you can fall into when you know their case well—and how to fix itTime Stamps00:00 What’s Cross Lab?04:05 How an expert witness can change your approach to word selection12:06 Mock Case Overview: State of Washington vs. Oscar Phillips13:28 Chuck Rathburn’s Cross: Painting a clear picture of contamination27:05 Approaching gender with an expert?33:03 Simple demonstratives to illustrate the difference a few percentage points can make in BAC levels35:17 Mark Choate’s Cross: Determining the level of intoxication45:51 Leveraging the expert to expose other mishandlings in the case and create reasonable doubt53:06 Bruce Ringstrom’s Cross: Exposing the expert’s lack of hands-on involvement1:06:46 The impact your reset has on a witness1:10:14 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like this1:12:37 The trap of knowing too much—and how to fix itTo get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com Key Insights from This EpisodeHow to Define Technical Terms on Cross-Examination So the Jury Understands What the Expert Is ConcedingChuck Rathbun opened his cross of state toxicologist Dr. Charlotte Ebers with a masterclass in definitional control. Before touching a single case fact, he walked her through agreeing that science is based on repeatability, not conjecture or bias. Then he moved to the word "validation" — getting her to agree it means the results are accurate, correct, can be trusted, and are reliable. Each synonym built on the last, creating a chain of agreement the jury could follow without any technical background. Only after locking in those definitions did he pivot to whether the blood collection procedures in this case met those standards.This approach solves a problem Chuck himself identified: juries sometimes don't connect the technical admissions to the verdict. By front-loading plain-language definitions and getting the expert to endorse each one, the attorney gives the jury a framework they can apply on their own. When the expert later admits that improper procedures could make results "inaccurate," the jury already knows — because the expert told them — that inaccurate means wrong, untrustworthy, and unreliable. The definitions do the closing argument work before the closing argument even begins.Three Categories of Expert Witnesses and How to Cross Each One DifferentlyMark Choate offered a framework for approaching expert witnesses that applies across every practice area. He breaks experts into three types. The first is the expert who isn't actually qualified to testify on the topics they're addressing — these are vulnerable on knowledge and credentials. The second is the expert who has become an advocate for the side that hired them, reaching beyond their expertise to help make the case — these are vulnerable on objectivity. The third is the expert who genuinely knows their material and stays within their lane — and with those, the best available strategy is often limited to establishing financial bias through their fees and repeat-hire patterns.Knowing which type of expert you're facing determines everything about your cross. Chuck's approach — going deep on technical procedures — works best against the first two types, where the attorney can match or exceed the expert's knowledge. Bruce's approach — systematically establishing everything the expert didn't know and didn't personally verify — works especially well against the third type, where you can't beat the expert on substance but can undermine the foundation their opinion rests on. The episode demonstrated all three strategies against the same witness, giving attorneys a playbook for deciding which approach fits their case.How to Dismantle an Expert Witness by Cataloging Everything They Don't Know and Didn't DoBruce Ringstrom's cross of Dr. Ebers opened by establishing a devastating pattern: every question revealed something the expert didn't know or didn't personally verify. She didn't retrieve the sample herself. She had no control over the chain of custody. She wasn't even the person who conducted the lab analysis — she was testifying about someone else's work. She didn't know the phlebotomist's name. She didn't know when the sample was transferred to police. ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    1 h et 17 min
  • Expert radiologist for the defense with 800+ cases on their behalf

    Expert radiologist for the defense with 800+ cases on their behalf
    Feb 18 2025

    In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa welcome personal injury trial attorneys Susie Injijian and Jon Choate, along with personal injury and criminal defense attorney Russell Goodrow.

    Watch as these 3 attorneys cross-examine Steve, who portrays an expert radiologist on behalf of the defense. They’ll challenge his opinion that only soft tissue injuries and pre-existing conditions—not lingering effects from MTBI—are present in the plaintiff.

    What’s covered in this episode:

    • Techniques for a 'yes, and' cross-examination that questions expert conclusions
    • How to score points against an expert who protests too much
    • The power of improvised loops to solidify words and concepts for the jury
    • How to leverage the power of what an expert doesn’t know
    • The offensive word that will make an expert witness bristle (even if it’s the truth)

    Time Stamps

    00:00 What’s Cross Lab?

    3:18 How to start formulating a cross

    6:22 Case Description: Sandra Little v. Grant School District & Gary Carpenter

    9:20 Jon Choate’s cross: Word choice that paints a clear picture for the jury

    19:35 How to stay out of an argument with the witness

    29:40 Russell Goodrow’s cross: Loops to control a witness and an easy physical demonstrative

    40:55 What to do when a witness that won’t answer the question

    49:50 Susie Injijan’s cross: Techniques for being an effective teacher/guide for the jury

    1:00:47 The word that no expert will want to hear (because it’s sooo good for you)

    1:04:48 Your biggest weapon in the courtroom

    1:09:44 Top takeaways of you had to cross a witness like this

    Would you like to be a guest or have an idea for a future episode, reach out to us here!

    Cross Lab is powered by LawPods.

    Get FREE narrative building resources for the courtroom here!
    Voir plus Voir moins
    1 h et 17 min