The first to state his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.

They biblical phrase describes trials, direct examination and cross examination in some ways better than any book or pamphlet.  Witnesses take the stand and on direct examination and “seem right”. They seem right, believable and convincing.  Then the challenge to their story comes in … we challenge their story.  We provide the counterweight.  When done, the witness no longer seems right.

I take you through a recent case, a probation violation hearing, where Proverbs 18:17 came to life.  I walk you through how the prosecution witness gave damning testimony against our client and it seemed “right” until cross examined.   This is a valuable lesson in not jumping to conclusions and allowing cross examination to tell the story.

Please be aware we are relying on impressions, recollections, memories and interpretations.

Robinhood. Vlad.  Citadel.  Steve Cohen. David Portnoy.  Game Stop.  Nokia.  AMC Theaters Holdings.  Dogecoin.  Bitcoin.  Shorts.  Options.  Wall Street bets.  Reddit.  We’ve seen a convergence of these names, financial terms, stocks, companies and entities over last few weeks as old school Wall Street butted heads with the public and WSB Reddit.  But when traders needed a platform to trade, Robin Hood and other similar trading companies banned trades, halted trading, changed the rules.  Wall Street benefitted.  The individual investor did not.  Yet, not one of the leaders, power brokers or those involved were subjected to real cross examination – real powerful, probing questioning.  I saw the interviews on television.  Softball questions.  Time limits.  What we needed is/was killer cross examination of Vlad and others.  In fact, I offered to do it.  

This is where Killer Cross Examination meets Robin Hood.  

I get asked a lot of questions about criminal defense.  I think all criminal lawyers do.  The questions, you can guess them:

• how can you defend those people
• have you ever defended someone who is guilty
• have you ever defended someone that admitted they were guilty
• have you ever defended someone who you knew was guilty
• have you ever gotten anyone off that was guilty

Here my take on why these questions miss the mark on what I/we do.

As a child, I watched the Wide World of Sports on ABC.  Like others, I loved the introduction – “the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.”  Who can forget the iconic ski jumper falling sideways off the ski jump, crashing and tumbling.  Pain. Hurt.  Disappointment.   In the criminal justice system, prosecutors can appeal rulings that they don’t like – when evidence is suppressed, police are adjudged to have broken the law or when a charge/case is dismissed.  I’ve watched client’s jump for joy, elation and relief when the charges are dismissed or evidence suppressed. I’ve watched as client’s have the proverbial rug pulled out from under them when the prosecutor appeals and tries to reverse the ruling.  It is cruel.  

In this episode, I explore and discuss this phenomenon.  As I said, when prosecutor’s appeal, it is not appealing.  

You’ve seen the interviews. Client sitting there. Lawyer next to her. And a reporter conducting an interview of them while the case is under investigation or while pending. Mia Ponsetto just did it, with her lawyer. Casey Anthony did it, with her lawyer. Others have done it with their lawyers too.

DON’T BE LIKE MIA. OR HER LAWYER.

In this episode, I explore these disastrous interviews and why you and your lawyer should avoid them at every turn.