The Law Offices

A successful trial begins the moment the trial lawyer is hired. A good litigation attorney sees into the future, to the closing argument and jury instructions. A winning trial begins at the initial client meeting, while his client first recounts the events that led to his or her arrest or were the cause of a federal probe or police investigation. Criminal trials are the stuff of legend, and for the big civil litigation cases, top quality is barely enough. You need the best of the best, a star, an artist of the most intimidating stage of all, the jury trial.

A criminal jury trial is a cocktail, a mix of theater, poetry, chess and warfare. However, it's not a gamble. A good trial lawyer plays to win, like a skilled card counter at the blackjack table. That's why it's as much art as science. It's both. The best attorneys can tell you when a case is not good for trial too, because not all cases are trial cases.

A good trial lawyer has the experience to visualise how a jury would react to the presentation of evidence, to cross-examination and to the closing argument. He can imagine how the jury may interpret the judge's instructions of law, and can picture how the twelve people might agree or disagree about facts, evidence and law. At that time, the qualified trial attorney will formulate a trial theory, and plan to execute the litigation strategy. He will capsulize all these elements into a simple compelling story, and weave the threads of the story throughout the fabric of the pretrial phase, the jury selection and the trial itself.

Once the trial lawyer has heard his client's version of events, he immediately calls upon his team of investigators, forensic scientists and field experts to gather the facts and process them. Because he has experience winning trial cases, he can guide is team to focus on uncovering or elucidating facts that will "crack the case," meaning he focuses on only those facts that would utterly frustrate the opposition and result in a victory.

Mr. Puri places a high premium on early and aggressive intervention and investigation into potential witnesses. Early work uncovers facts harmful to the opposition's case at time when the opposing attorney has not yet invested time and energy into the case. When evidence that may be harmful to a potential opponent's case is presented to the opposiong lawyers, victory can be assured early.

Trial lawyers make the best negotiators as well. It's all part of the aggressive investigation ethos: By investigating early and acquiring favorable facts, the litigation attorney is armed with leverage -- facts harmful to the opposition-- and it's leverage that leads to charges being avoided, cases dismissed or successful settlement. When the opponent doesn't have the vision to see the weaknesses in their own case, it's leverage that leads to victory.

There are two kinds of leverage. The first is what has already been discussed, facts uncovered from thorough investigation. The second is legal leverage: law and motion work that eliminates counts or charges, or prevents the opposition from using evidence at trial; there are also discovery motions that force opponents to reveal evidence favorable to the defense. Often times, these legal motions can debilitate the other side and result in a dismissal, or a settlement to an extremely favorable position.

If a case goes to trial it's three talents that win 1) jury selection, 2) cross-examination, and 3) story-telling. All three of these skills are woven together and are inseparable, applicable at every stage of trial. Good jury selection involves learning about the audience, strong questioning skills and weaving the story into the selection process. Strong cross-examination involves weaving the story into every question in a way that contemplates the specific personalities of the jurors in the box. The trial theory requires reiterating and enhancing the story points brought out on cross-examination, using forensics experts and factual witnesses. Again, the questions are tailored to the suit the audience. Opening statement and closing argument involve telling a compelling story, the elements of the story grow from the points established on cross-examination and in the defense case-in-chief, delivered in a way to impact the personalities in the box.

Long gone are the days of fancy rhetoric, hyperbole and creative metaphors. While the lessons of Cicero are not completely dead, and good speaking skills are obviously important, jurors' expectations have changed. People these days are very saavy, quick witted and key in on inconsistent speech and verbal slight of hand. People expect straight forward, common-sense stories that resonate with truth. Today, most jurors absolutely hate being in court, and if the case forces them to miss work and time with the family, then they hold each side to a high standard of credibility.

Therefore, story-telling has replaced rhetoric as the optimal vehicle for disseminating information to the jury. Rather than a good speech, jurors are listening for a credible story. People are totally turned off by politicians and their tactics; yet are usually engrossed in drama in many forms of media. The beauty of a good story-telling skill is that stories can be told in a way that is compelling, rich, fact-driven, full of dense meanings. A good story appears simple, but always is packed with many persuasive elements that can be highlighted point by point at all stages of the trial. Most importantly a good story is real; it resonates with credibility and believability.

When you are facing trial, you want an attorney at your side that stands taller then the other side, whose credibility is more firm than the government agents, detectives, inspectors and officers. You wants a trial lawyer who can stand up straight in front of the juror and tell the truth, the truth that will set you free... or vindicates you financially.