More on McDonald

Mark Murakami has put together a very nice page of resources on McDonald.

McDonald v. Chicago, III

Here's an interesting article analyzing the different approaches taken by the Plaintiffs and their amici. And here's Randy Barnett's prediction.

McDonald v. Chicago,II

And here's the CATO Institute's amicus brief.

McDonald v. Chicago

The Peitioner's Brief on the Merits has been filed in McDonald v. Chicago, a fascinating case pitting the Second Amendment against states' rights. Read a good summary here.

The Chronlogy of Trial Prep

The October 2009 issue of the ABA Journal contained an interesting article entitled, "Give Chronology a Timeout." The point of the article was that contrary to standard dogma, you should not assume that the best way to present your evidence at trial is in chronological order. In a nutshell:

"After you’ve decided what goes in each of your pictures," said Angus, "decide on the order in which you’re going to show them to the jury, with three questions in mind: First, what order makes it easiest to understand the story? Second, what order makes the moral imperative come alive so that the jury decides your client is the victim of a serious injustice? Third, what order puts the focus of judgment on the other party?"

The article is well worth reading (as is anything by Jim McElhaney) but I quibbled with one small point. He advises, "Tell them the story. Start with your opening statement, where you put together a series of verbal snapshots that you create out of the evidence." Now, I agree that it is critical to present your story in a persuasive way in your opening statement. But when preparing your case for trial, the better place to start is your closing argument. Only when you know exactly and entirely what you want to argue at the end, will you be able to orchestrate the rest of your trial presentation.

Opinion as Literature?

Hammond v Hall, No. 08-11108 (11th Cir. Nov. 4 2009) comes close. This case is a 100+-page affirmance of a denial of a petition for habeas corpus, but the real star is Judge Carnes's writing. The whole thing is a great read, but the statement of facts is particularly well-crafted. The first paragraph gets you started, and doesn't let you stop:

Julie Love was driving a red Mustang convertible through the upscale Buckhead section of Atlanta around 10:00 p.m. on July 11, 1988. It was one of those typically hot summer nights in Georgia. The petite 27-year-old preschool fitness teacher had been to her regular Monday night “career chat” meeting. She had gotten engaged the week before and may have been thinking about that. Whatever was on her mind, her thoughts were interrupted by the reality of her car slowing to a stop, as cars do when they run out of gas. She steered it over to the side of the road.

Read it all.

Welcome!

Welcome to my new blog, where I plan to post Notes and Comments about the law.

My first today pertains to a case, originally written about in the AmLaw Litigation Daily, that exemplifies my approach to litigation.

The Plaintiff, Bonnie Kramer, claimed to have visited several establishments to find ADA violations. As reflected in the trial court's order granting summary judgment, the defendant masterfully and thoroughly used the tools of discovery and investigation to refute many of Plaintiff's factual claims. Specifically, the Defendant:

• Obtained certified records from the transit authority proving that Kramer had not used the bus to get to the store as she had claimed in her deposition; and
• Submitted an affidavit from the property owner establishing that the store was not open on the day Kramer claimed to have visited;

Kramer then submitted a supplemental affidavit to "correct" the deposition, and an undated receipt which she had not previously produced in response to discovery requests. Thanks to the defendant's hard work, the Court rejected both.

Well done!