Transcript for:
Stages of Litigation - Part 2 Lecture 4

hello class this is professor bryant with the great fayetteville state university how are you doing today hopefully you're doing great i'm doing great we have another lecture today starting with uh the stages of litigation uh this is going to be part two of a lecture that we've already that we've already had the state stages of litigation are pleadings discovery and trial now we did pleadings and discovery in the previous lecture video lecture and so today we're going to do today we're gonna do trial okay and so um when we talk about trial before we get to the trial let's just talk about some let's talk about some i don't know some basic things some let's talk about some fundamental things that you need to know uh emotions motions look during the course of litigation again we're talking about civil litigation for some reason lawyers love motions i guess i should put my sweet tea down lawyers love motions and so motions can do a lot of different things normally what happens is the plaintiff who files the lawsuit has the burden of proof and that burden of proof is they must prove by a preponderance of the evidence preponderance of the evidence again a civil lawsuit you know if it was a criminal lawsuit they had to do what prove beyond a reasonable doubt that would be your burden of proof but in a civil lawsuit your burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence proponents of the evidence just says is what the plaintiff alleging is true isn't more likely than not true like if this if these are the scales you know how the lady justice does she does like that she's supposed to be equal scales has the plaintiff tipped it just a little bit in their favor that that's all proponents of the evidence is if we did the scales based on um the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt lady justice scales all the way over right and really show beyond a reasonable doubt that that that the defendant is guilty in a criminal case but in a civil case civil we're looking for what money as opposed to going to jail in a civil case the burden of proof for the plaintiff is the plaintiff must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence okay and so because the plaintiff has the burden of proof the defendant is always trying the defendant is always trying different things to try to get the case dismissed always trying different things to try to get the case dismissed and uh one of the things that the defendant tries is what we call um emotion motions they file various emotions as time as as the case goes on okay let's go off the record for a second okay so we're talking about motions let's talk about emotion to dismiss a motion to dismiss is normally filed in the answer remember what the answer is okay the answers are part of the pleadings the pleadings consist of the complaint and the answer everybody with me so far so the complaint is filed by the plaintiff the defendant files an answer uh responding to all the allegations in the complaint okay and in that answer he norm the defendant he or she normally includes what we call a motion to dismiss and basically what they're saying in the answer when they file a motion to dismiss is the plaintiff has not sufficiently made allegations in the complaint to legally support their claim okay they have not made sufficient allegations in the complaint to legally support the claim okay um whose phone is that what does that keep happening let's see who's calling wisconsin and i'm in north carolina what do you think that is that is probably it's probably what we call what are those things scum of the earth things that call you just out of the blue what do they call it not spam what they call it robocallers telemark oh telemarketers okay anyhow i digress okay so anyhow so emotion to dismiss is in the answer and in the answer they're following the motion to dismiss and what they're saying to the court is judge they just don't have enough they have not alleged enough facts sufficient to support the claim let me see something um i must do this man suppose suppose the complaint alleged a battery a battery is that i was physically attacked by somebody and a battery is the is the legal claim that says that that the person made contact with me they touched me they hit me in some way right suppose that's the claim that they that they committed a battery against me and the battery requires there'd be some kind of physical contact well in the course of the lawsuit they're alleging that the person that the person scared them and they went to run and when they went to run they tripped and they fell down right all right so the so the defendant would allege what that they have not they have not stated facts that will support a battery claim because battery requires what physical contact you're with me on that battery requires physical contact so they would say that they have not sufficiently alleged the elements of the claim i don't know i probably could have came up something better than that but that's all you get for today okay all right so most of your dismiss that's in the answer okay motion for summary judgment now motion for summary judgment is normally filed when after discovery after discovery so what have what i mean okay we've had the pleading stage the plaintiff filed the complaint the defendant filed an answer then we have the discovery phase what happened during discovery both sides discovered what the other side had right during discovery we used what what are some discovery tools that we used all right what's one i don't hear you okay now that short-term memory is killing okay we just talked about this uh just the previous lecture discovery tools what are some discovery tools okay right interrogatories is one request for production is a discovery tool what else deposition is the discovery tool what else requests for admissions so during discovery we use all those discovery tools we came up with all this information we know everybody knows what the other side is going to say and we're ready to go to trial but before we get to trial and after discovery the defendant files a motion for summary judgment and what the defendant's finds that it says that emotion percentage judgment says judge if you look at everything that they that they have submitted if you look at all the documents and discovery that the parties have exchanged if you even and if you consider all the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff may not even like most favorable to us just consider the facts and the light most favorable to the plaintiff even if you consider give them all the benefit of the doubt based on the information we have and the evidence that has been presented this case should not go to the jury you should grant summary judgment against the defendant because against the plaintiff because the plaintiff there's no way the plaintiff can legally prove her claim and there's no need in wasting the jury's time with this lawsuit right summary judgment and you'd be surprised how often summary judgment is granted in federal court now in state courts summary judgment is is not usually granted right in state court normally if you if you're in state court normally the court's going to allow you to get to a jury trial let the jury decide but in federal court where the where the federal court judges particularly in north carolina we're we're considered a conservative district eastern north carolina and then our appeal is to the fourth circuit court of appeals that's considered one that for years was considered one of the most conservative circuits you know summary judgment is i mean it's kind of normal particularly in employment discrimination cases and things like that a lot of times i don't care i don't care if they're i don't care how many volumes of documents you have the judge will look at it and the judge will make a determination as to whether or not he believes that a jury can find discrimination or not and the judge can dismiss the case without it ever going to a jury trial summary judgment um so anyhow so summary judgment is is is a motion that occurs after discovery where the whether where the party without the burden of proof the defendant says judge you should grant summary judgment and not even force us to go in front of a jury because the defendant cannot prove his case even if you consider all the evidence in light most favorable to to the defendant okay all right uh one of the terms of art we use for summary judgment is there are no no genuine issues of material fact okay the defendant says judge there are no genuine issues of material fact the facts are already established and even if based on the facts they've been established there's no way that the uh plaintiff can win grant some each other okay next motion for direct inverter that says mostly direct inverted but what it should say is let me use motion good hand right here motion for directed verdict now that happens during trial so so you can be in the middle of a trial excuse me and the plaintiff put on all the plaintiff's evidence during the minimum trial and we'll talk about how the plaintiff rests plaintiff put us on puts on all their evidence then the pledge of rest then the defendant puts on all his evidence well look during the course of a trial when the plaintiff puts on all of their evidence plaintiff has called all his witnesses his introduces experts he's got all his documents in the evidence and and the judge says is does the plaintiff have any further showing the plunder says things up says your honor the plaintiff rest that means the plaintiff has done all they're going to do to present the case you with me okay at that point before the defendant before the defendant starts putting on any evidence the defendant will make a motion for directed verdict and the motion for directed verdict is a lot a lot like the motion for um summary judgment it basically says judge you heard everything the plaintiff has to say and even if you believe everything the plaintiff says if you believe everything the plaintiff and their witnesses say you should direct verdict in our favor it should not have to go to a jury we should not have to put on any more evidence right emotion for directed verdict and sometimes they're grounded i can't say with what frequency but a motion for direct inverted happens during trial okay and then the other motion that you guys will be responsible for more or less are two motions these motions happen after trial so again just giving you the big picture so we're at the end of a trial the jury has already returned the verdict and one side doesn't like the verdict that the jury returned right one side doesn't like it one side lost will decide that loss can make a motion to the judge even after the jury trial it can make a motion to the judge for a new trial or motion to the judge for a a judgment notwithstanding the verdict j nov we just call it j enov in legal terms go read it in the book it says judgment not withstanding the verdict so give me a judgment in spite of the verdict that the jury gave against me give me a verdict in my favor okay so those are two motions that are made after a trial and if a judge grants the motion the judge can do one or two things he can grant a new trial right and just throw out the jury's verdict and can grant a new trial and say we're going to try this case all over again or the judge can say you know what i'm going to throw out the jury's verdict and i'm going to introverted myself first if a jury gave a million-dollar verdict i guess against it against a doctor in a malpractice case right and the doctor after and after the trial the doctor's lawyers made a motion for new trial or motion for emotion jnov the judge could grant the motion jnov and with the jlv motion the judge can say you know what i know the jury granted a million-dollar verdict but i'm going to reduce that i'm going to change that i'm gonna i'm gonna enter a judgment for zero dollars and i'm not gonna give the plaintiff anything yeah the judge can do that there's certain standards that they have that they have to um to abide by and look i'm and i may have been using these terms loosely but a jury renders a verdict right but that verdict is not is not the enforceable part it's when the judge reduces that verdict to a judgment right so the judgment would say the jury came back with the verdict million dollars for the doctor um i hereby enter judgment against the doctor for a million dollars right or the judge could say the jury came up with a verdict of a million dollars for for the doc against the doctor uh i am um i've reviewed the motion january i've decided that that the jury verdict should be set aside and therefore i'm entering a judgment of zero for the plaintiff okay all right judgment all right versus verdict okay who will we work that out emotions motions everybody good with that any questions all right so we did so we talked about emotions let's talk about let's talk about evidence let's talk about evidence so during the course of a trial everything the jury does does not get to hear everything you know what i mean if you remember when i told you in discovery you can discover certain things that may not be admissible at trial well same thing with the um you know discovery you may find that you may find here of documents i mean you may hear about statements that people made you may know all kinds of stuff but the question is can you get it in trial can you get in front of the jury that's the question well if the if it is hearsay evidence if the evidence is hearsay then no the evidence is inadmissible okay and what do you remember when i told you that that with regards to the discovery rules that there was something called the rules of civil procedure right rules of civil procedure remember i wrote it in the blood of block on the board i don't know if you do i remember but maybe you don't now the rules of civil procedure well look there are rules of evidence there are certain rules that say look before evidence if if evidence is going to get in front of a jury if a jury is going to hear it then though that evidence must comply with these rules of evidence and so one of the objections that a lawyer can make to certain evidence is an objection called hearsay hearsay what does hear say really i mean read the book definition but hearsay is just he says she said in other words you can't get on the stand and say i heard i heard that he said that he heard she said you can't do that right if you're going to testify on the stand you have to testify to something of your own personal knowledge you can't you can't get understand testify about what sally told you she saw you can on you can only testify about what you personally saw and it only makes sense i mean how are you gonna cross examine somebody when they're saying yes sally told me that she saw john sticking up you know uh sneaking over to uh you know somebody's house right i mean hey where's sally right we need to get sally on the stand let me close exam and sally let me talk to sally about that she had glasses like professor bryant how far can she really see you know what i mean i need to cross-examine her to make sure to be able to determine her testimony and so and so the only person can testify about what sally saw is who sally right if anybody else testifies about it then they're not testifying of their own personal knowledge they're not testifying to what they personally witnessed and therefore they were not they're not giving me an opportunity to cross-examine them about what they actually saw and so hearsay is an exception that says hearsay evidence cannot be admitted against someone okay hearsay cannot be admitted against someone all right it's inadequate inadmissible evidence inadmissible here's something the other evidence uh evidentiary rules you need to know about for purposes of this class now there's the book the hearsay book is this thick you know what i mean i mean not the hearsay book the rules of evidence is this thick so there are a lot of rules in there i'm only going to do i'm going to do two rules for this class and then i'm only going to do them very basically like even though we just talked about hearsay as being he said she said the rule yeah that's the rule a person can only take the stand and testify their own personal knowledge that's the rule but there's so many exceptions to the rule i mean as a lawyer and i know that but as a lawyer if i'm trying to get evidence into the record i need to know all of the exceptions because it may qualify under one of those exceptions and i'm not going to go into them but there are a lot of probably i mean sometimes the exception swallows the rule have you ever heard that exception swallow the rules so really there's so many exceptions to the to the hearsay rule but for your purposes there are no exceptions right for your purpose in this class if it's hearsay it's not a missile okay all right the next rule is something called relevancy relevancy the rule of relevancy and i think i tried to write it here is it is the is the evidence you want to get into the record in front of a jury is it too remote and too prejudicial too remote and too prejudicial right well it make the jury decide decide the facts of the case based on something that's un really unrelated to what really happened in the case you want to know that and i'll give you a i can give you a quick example i'm not out of breath okay hey professor pride this is uh i guess i can do advertisement for these people southern sweet tea lipton there's enough sugar in here to keep you going for like i don't know two weeks okay let's talk about relevancy okay relevancy okay so i'm gonna give you a quick example so suppose uh i'll give you i'm gonna give you a real life example good this guy represented years ago and and uh i'd like to give this example because if the guy died later a real nice guy ended up dying uh probably about ten years after after this situation i'm gonna tell you about so i like to tell this just to remember him a little bit condom so what happened is uh in an employment discrimination trial the client my client we had an employer discrimination trial and he was alleging that he was fired under circumstances that that the white employees were not fired it was a race discrimination claim and so he basically he got mad that supervisor said some things to the supervisor and they fired him and his evidence was that the that a lot of the white supervisors had done a lot worse than anything he'd ever done and had not even been fired and not and not been written up you know one of them had kicked in the door one that cussed the guy out you know another one hadn't shown up for work for two weeks i mean it was just a crazy environment and this guy and my client who was the only black supervisor that the plant ever had i forgot what he said to the guy and the guy fired him and had people escort him out so we were suing him for uh discrimination you know treating them differently because of his race anyhow so the case was going real good i thought it was the trial was going great as far as i was concerned and everything looked good and then we put on our evidence to plan to put on the evidence and you know how you we'll talk about a little bit all your witnesses all your evidence all this other stuff everything was going good and then uh we rested and the judge asked the defendant to call their first witness and the defendant called my client's girlfriend living girlfriend i think he had a baby bar as their first witness i was like objection your honor what did i say objection your honor what relevance jack's irrelevance i mean she wasn't there she didn't know anything about any of this stuff happened she wanted the workplace objection irrelevant so the judge asked the guy i said look look attorney what is the relevance of her testimony of course by this time the jury was out you know into the jury room we were having a this argument about should this evidence come in and the lawyer says judge we found we found um we found where she had taken out a criminal charge she ultimately dismissed it but she took out a criminal charge against him for physical assault a domestic domestic battery and we got the we got the um charge and the file from the da's office and they're these are the pictures that were in the file and then the picture in the file there were pictures where i mean i never asked him if he did it but man she had been beat pretty bad in the face and i knew i know these people for a year and a half all the cases going on i never knew any of this had occurred in their past right and uh so anyhow so the lawyer wanted to get it into evidence to show that he was this kind of violent person or something like that and so of course i objected and i'll tell you an interesting fact about it is there were 12 jurors 11 of them were women right so what were they going to do when they when they heard evidence that this guy my client had actually physically assaulted his girlfriend at some time prior to even going to work for these people you know they probably would would have decided the case like many of you would based on the fact i'm not giving this guy nothing right especially if they saw pictures i'm not giving him nothing if he does something like this he's a piece of crap i'm not giving him anything right and so our rejection was just that evidence is and that evidence is not relevant because first of all it's too remote it's not going to help them decide anything about the facts of the case about whether or not there's discrimination or not because she wasn't there she doesn't know anything about it the second thing is it is too prejudicial prejudicial if they hear that evidence they're going to forget about everything else that's said and the case is over because they're going to rule based on that evidence and so the court ultimately ruled uh that that the um that the evidence was not admissible that the evidential rule of relevancy uh prevented from being admitted because the evidence was too remote and too prejudicial okay all right okay let's talk about jury selection now and so how do we get the jury selection well we get a jury selection all this was background stuff right but the way we get the jury selection is now we're at trial right we've been through in fact where's my there's my marker here let's just let's go and take this stuff out because i don't want you to get confused and i don't feel like stop i don't feel like since it's a live recording i don't feel like going to the video i'm starting all over so let's do this we're at trial now we're at trial using my good hand right okay we're at trial now now we're at trial we've gotten past all the emotions the judge denied all the emotions to dismiss all this other stuff so now we're at trial right what happens at trial well one of the first things that happened that happens at trial is what we call jury selection the actual jury selection the legal term for jury selection is something called vordia some put an e on the end of it one dear that's the legal term for jury selection one deal okay and uh i don't know you guys aren't you guys are just most of y'all old enough to remember the o.j simpson trial and they had jury selection at jerusalem for what for months i mean just months i mean it was just the most extensive jurisdiction oh that's right you guys know because they came out with the movie it's funny you know living through history and then they'll come out with the movie later to to replay the history for another generation that's kind of funny but anyhow so um so voidier is jury selection and the way jury selection works and i'm going to go through this quickly the way jury selection works is that is that the the sheriff's department and the clerk they say they get 500 people in a room are in the court that morning not 500 maybe 250 people in a room for court that morning and everybody gets in there everybody listens to a video everybody it you know does all this other stuff and they get ready and then what they do is they call 12 people into the jury box just i mean 12. there's there's 250 people in there they're all you know the the clerk has got this big old you know i don't know different clerks do different things maybe they have a top hat maybe they have a a kitchen bowl i don't know maybe it's just a box all these names in the clip moves around reaches in and pulls out a name okay john take a juror number one seat sally take journal number three tom take journal number four you know they go all the way until they've actually have to use my i'm not to use my drawing skills here they go all the way until they have actually actually had 12 jurors seated and you guys have heard this term called jury box jury boss let me see here one two three four five six okay how many more do i need uh let's do this all right everybody good with that let's do your one two three four five six seven eight 9 10 11 12. so we they've gone through the process now they have 12 now they have 12 jurors in the jury box okay and each side whichever side has the burden proof starts first the plaintiff starts first asks all 12 jurors different questions i mean you know go through the background whatever questions they are however extensive they want to be and so what happens is suppose the plaintiff's attorney gets to the point where he's like you know what uh there's a couple of these jurors i don't want on my jury and he's saying he's thinking to himself because you're not saying out loud right now how do i get them off my jury well there's two ways you can get jurors off your jewelry one is by using what we call a preemptory challenge preemptory challenge the problem with using those is they're limited i think north carolina gives you eight perimeters parent three challenges eight right and um and or you can use a cause challenge a cause challenge is unlimited you use as many of those as you want to okay so a periphery challenge says you can take somebody off without telling the court the reason all you got to do is say judge we would thank but excuse jordan number two jordan number nine jordan number six juror number 12. that's all you got to do but what have you just done oh you've just used four predatory challenges now you're down to four now you only have four left you want to know that but what if you were able to excuse them for calls what if you were able to excuse them for calls because you have unlimited calls then you will still have all eight parental reading challenges so it's preferable to excuse them for calls when you can the problem is you cannot excuse everybody for calls the only people you can excuse for cause are the people that say judge i don't care what you say i don't care what i hear i'm so i'm so biased against the defendant or i'm so biased against the plaintiff that i'm not i'm not going to be able to listen to the evidence and i'm not going to be able to rule based on the evidence i'm going to be there i'm only going to rule based on what happened to me before right i suppose this is a situation where uh where a person was a in an automobile accident right and the only doctor they treat treatment they got was a chiropractor with me on that and so during the course of what did the lawyer will say you know have any of you used chiropractic services before if anybody had any problems and wouldn't do a raise hand i've used it before okay have you had problems yes would you mind telling us what problems oh chiropractors are quacks chiropractor i use kind of their time is gonna crack my back next thing i know hey i end up having tingling in my in my foot and then and then in my back and then not only that a chiropractor will treat you forever you don't have to have nothing wrong they just like money you know so okay okay man okay ma'am this is the question for you uh since you feel that way about chiropractors will you be able to sit on this jury and listen to the evidence which includes chiropractic testimony and give it the weight it deserves and set aside the feelings that you have from the past about past expenses with with chiropractors no i cannot no i no i will not i there's nothing you can tell me about the copyright okay all right then you need to say to this judge judge we'd like to excuse this jewel for cause because this jury is not going to be able to listen to the facts of the case not going to be able to listen to the instructions that you gave and this jury is not going to be able to be a fair and impartial juror and i'm not just saying this as the attorney she just admitted it and the judgment question that you're furthering the juror keeps saying over and over no i can't do it i'm i'm not going to be unbiased then the judge will allow them to be dismissed for cause okay and so vaughn goes back and forth you know the plaintiff the way it works is plaintiff's lawyer goes and the plaintiff's lawyer against these 12 and then plaintiff's lawyer says you know what i want to i want to dismiss uh these six i like i like to remove these six okay what happens they call it six more so you get rid of these six i mean you get rid of these six right but what they do is they call in six more and they each each the new ones come back and sit in the jury seat so we still have 12 jurors but we just spent the last five hours questioning these now we got to start another question these new jurors and then they do it again suppose they like these but they they want to get rid of three and four right now they say judge you know we think but excuse three and four the judge would say clerk put uh two more people in three and four so then they put three and four in there i knew three and four and now finally the plaintiff's glory is satisfied praise the lord says you know what judge i'm satisfied with the jurors that we have right now but guess what he passes them to the defense attorney what does the defense attorney do same question defense attorney starts all over the same question so what defense attorney says you know what judge i want to get rid of these these jurors right here just say okay clerk defense attorney got rid of them let's put new jurors in a box they put new jurors in the box okay defense attorney questions those six jurors right he says okay judge i'm satisfied with the first six i got from the plaintiff and i'm satisfied with the new six that i got after i got the jury after i started questioning the jury so what has to happen now that's right now the plaintiff has to go and question the new six because the plaintiff never got a chance to question the new six so what if the pointer says judge i want to get rid of 9 10 and 11. so we put a new 9 10 and 11 in there and the plane says judge i'm satisfied now with everybody i got plus my new 9 10 11. well who has not questioned 9 10 11 the defense attorney hadn't so now the defensive attorney gets the question 9 10 11 because he's questioning everybody else already he said you know what judge i don't like none of them i want a new 9 10 11. he questions them and he says jazz i'm satisfied everybody i got plus i'm satisfied with the new 9 10 11 i got so what has to happen then that's right the plaintiff's attorney has not questioned 9 10 11. so now that place attorney gets to question 9 10 11 again and it goes on and on and on you with me that's why perectory challenges are so important because you see how many people are crossed out you're not going to cross out that many people because you only have eight prep degree challenges and it's going to be very few people that are going to admit that they're going to be so biased that they can't serve on the jury so you only have eight perimeter challenge so really it's going to reduce that a lot but jury selection can go on for a long time i mean a jewish jewish election can happen in two or three hours jewish election can take a week just depending on the trial okay all right jury selection for rent new trial and jury selection voidier preventatory challenges and cause challenges i try to do that quickly because it can be boring we'll go online and look at you can go online youtube jury selection if you want to sit around and watch the jury selection for three hours but that's basically how it works okay any questions about that all right good let's go off the record i'm gonna switch my board up we'll get right back okay uh class i've switched my board now we're gonna talk continue talking about the stages of litigation oh here we are in trial finally when did we start this we started this with a meeting with the lawyer and then the lawyer filed the complaint and the summons and we had to serve the summons on them and then there was the answer and then the answer had motions in it and then we had to go through discovery with the interrogators request production requests for admissions and depositions and then we had to deal with the summary judgment motion and now and then we had after summer judgment motion we had to deal with this jury selection stuff and now finally it's time to play all right we did all that just to have such just to have one of the most exciting experiences you can have as a lawyer which is it's the tri-case okay so we're going to go through the process of of of of a trial um you know um and then we'll go through the process okay we started with opening statements opening statements now look let's do this i'm gonna do this real quick opening statements versus closing arguments or closing statements right opening statements i should say closing statements down here i guess i'll go ahead and do it since this is on video somebody might not hear it just say closing statements to be internally consistent okay close this thing open the statements and close the statements now look they're similar but they are [Music] different okay what happens with the opening statement is when the trial first starts the rules of civil procedure allow a allow a um a party right to stand in front of the jury and tell the jury what evidence they expect the jury will hear and so this is this this is a opening statement is a part of the trial that you have never seen in the movie because open statements are not the exciting part there's nothing really exciting about an opening statement it is your opportunity as a lawyer to take a deep breath to go ahead and tell the jury what you expect them to hear what the different witnesses will say and and tell the story in such a way that when the jury is listening to this testimony that when the jury hears somebody say something and jury they hear different things the jury is going to remember oh yeah this is consistent with what the attorney said okay and so that's an opening statement just we we call it giving a party giving the people a road map as to what's going to happen a road map okay all right closing statements are different closing statements are after all of this evidence and everything is over right closing statements and so closing statements are what you have seen on tv closing statements after the evidence and after after everything is in that's when the lawyers get on the get on the you know in front of the jury and they you know they spit and they cry and they all the demonstrative and throwing their hands around and they're doing all this other stuff and the voice inflection they're doing all this stuff because closing statements is that is the opportunity for basically for the claims attorney or the defense attorney to try to sway the jury to ruling their favor that's the one chance in the closing statements that you get to look the jury and jurors in the eye and tell them what you want them to do how you expect them to see the evidence and and that's the one time really that nobody can stop you when you say it out loud and say it to the jury any other time like if you if a lori saw a juror in the hallway and said to the juror look uh you know when so-and-so takes a stand you need to be careful because he's not going to be telling the truth if a lawyer said that to a jury don't do it in a hallway during the trial oh that's i mean that that would be so unethical right and that would probably result in a new trial and result the lawyer being thrown off the case right be unethical for the lawyer to talk to a jury anytime outside of the closing statements and the opening statements okay all right so uh oh let's let's just while we're gonna close this thing this if you guys can think about a a time uh not a time but think about a uh movie or something where you've seen a great closing statement uh what's that what's that uh oh a time to kill have you guys seen that movie a time to kill now that was a great closing that was a great closing statement in time to kill when he asked the jurors just closed their eyes started telling the story and by the time he was finished telling the story and told him to open her eyes all the jurors had tears in the eyes you know what i mean it was that was a that was a great that was a great closing statement a little dramatic for a real life trial but hey you know when you're trying to i'm trying to win a trial there's no telling what you will do okay i'm going to close this thing okay um so let's go back up here so we had opening statements where the where the attorney told the jury what they could expect next we have examination of witnesses so you guys have heard the term direct examination cross-examination redirect and recross so let's just do it real quick with my little chart let's say plaintiff has three witnesses sally john and tom okay all right players witnesses okay so plaintiff has the burden of proof plaintiff's lawyer calls his witnesses first puts on his evidence first because the plaintiff has the burden of proof in the case so plaintiff has to present her case first all of her evidence plaintiff's arrest and then the defendant presents this case oliver seven then the defendant rests okay so now the plaintiff is putting on her evidence plaintiff is gonna call sally pleasure laurie calls sally as a witness sally's the plaintiff right plays the lord called sally put sally on the stand he starts questioning sally when the plaintiff's lawyer is questioning his own witnesses then he's doing what we call direct examination during direct examination you can't lead the witness you have to up ask them open-ended questions you can't leave them and just give them a yes or no kind of question that would be objection leading right okay so what sally testifies as plaintiff's glorious questioner when he finished questioning sally then guess what the defense attorney questioned sally and when he questioned sally he's conducted cross-examination during cross-examination he can go exile he can make sally he can answer leading questions no ma'am it's a yes or no answer yes or no it's a yes or no yes or no question what is the answer yes or no you know your honor it's a yes or no question would you please ask the witness would you please obstruct the witness to answer my question yes or no you know and you go i mean you go right in go right at a go right at a witness doing cross examination okay all right so defense so when defense when the defense attorney's question is sally defendants attorney question sally that's cross examination plaintiff's attorney can then question sally again that's redirect defense attorney can question sally again that's recross same thing with um when plaintiff calls their next witness john on behalf of the plaintiff right the direct examination of john and john's on the stand player's lawyer finishes questioning john then defense attorney gets the question john that's going to be a cross-examination then you got redirect recalls same thing with tom everybody good with that all right so now plato has put on her case called all her witnesses plenty of rest right now it's time for the you know after the motion for directed verdict which we talked about earlier assuming the judge denies the motion for directed verdict now it's time for the defendant to put on his witnesses right and when the defender puts on his witnesses is the defendant so defenders attorney calls rosco to the stand and when he questions roscoe he's conducting what what type of questioning he's conducting direct examination because roscoe is his witness and then when plaintiff's attorney question questions roscoe he's doing what cross-examination right and then redirecting recross okay defendant attorney calls willie to the stand when defendant's attorney's asking really questions he's asking really what direct examination and when defend and when plaintiff's attorney asks willie questions he's conducting what cross-examination same thing with that with that okay you guys see that directing across examiner examination redirecting recross all right i was trying to talk to that quickly because i don't want you guys get bored with that because we have so much more to talk about okay all right so this is the part where all the evidence happens right all the evidence the maps the you know the documents the experts everybody does all the examination of witnesses when all there but let's get in once both sides have closed once both sides have said your honor we rest plagiarize rest defendant has rest and then the the next stage is what we call closing statements right closing statements the parties uh allow the lawyers to stand up in front of them and tell them what they what they should or shouldn't think right all right so uh a lot of people think that after closing statements it goes directly to the jury to jury deliver deliberation but that's not true after closing statements there's a very important part called jury instructions right jury instructions are are a set of instructions that the parties and the judge got together and they decided on what the judge would tell the jury about the law of the case you know it's fine for the jury to decide the facts what's true who's lying who's not lying but the jury has to listen to the judge's instructions to determine what the law is right so the judge would tell the jury this is the law and you must follow this law as i give it to you when you you know when you decide this case now he will he'll tell the jury look you are the ones to determine the facts you can determine who to believe or not to believe but once you determine what facts are true and not true this law that i'm giving you this is the way that you have to apply the law is everybody good with that and so what happens with jury instructions is is really before closing statements sometime before we even get started with the trial good when the jury goes on lunch or something like that the judge will keep the the judge will keep the um keep the lawyers around and we'll have a jury instruction conference and both sides will have submitted jury instructions to the judge they think the judge should read the judge will agree to read some of it he'll agree not to read some of it and at some point the judge will say okay these are the jury instructions that i'm going to read to the jury i've looked at i've talked to you guys i've listened to your arguments i've listened to your writings these are the jury instructions that i'm going to give the jury and you can like it or not but once the judge decides that's what your instructions that's what it gives you can enter an objection and whatever but the judge ultimately decides the jury instructions um that being said you guys remember the trayvon martin case remember that trayvon and um what's that guy's name zimmerman remember that that was it was a travesty travis d but when you when i read the the the the trial read about the deliberation the trial deliberation and uh what occurred it was very interesting to read the jury instruction conference during the jury in the case really to tell you the truth the case was decided during the jury instruction conference between the d.a and the defense attorney and the judge i mean i know a lot of people a lot of things happen and and you know the guy didn't get convicted but really uh it was decided not only any of this other stuff it was decided right here it was decided right here jury instructions why because the the issue in that case was stand your ground and that is when can a person usually use use a lethal force right when can a person use lethal force and florida has this crazy stand your ground law and i know i'm on video you can send it who you want to send it to it is crazy florida's stand your ground law is that if you're anywhere in florida and we'll go into this more we get a criminal law but if you're anywhere in florida where you have a where you have a right to be which is anywhere you know on the street corner at a nightclub anywhere you are if if somebody uh if you feel threatened if you fear if you feel that you are in fear of serious and imminent but serious and imminent bodily harm serious and imminent bodily harm then you have a right not to run not to call the cops you have a right to use lethal force to kill somebody right that's the stand your ground law in florida that's why you know what happened with them what happened with the trayvon was so sad right so what happens is there's an exception to the to the stand your ground rule that exception is it does not apply if you are the first aggressor right if you're the one starting the fight then you can't come back and say oh the bully you know beat me up you can't because you started the fight if you're the first aggressor stand your ground does not protect you when you usually to force to kill somebody so during the jury instructions uh the district attorney wanted the instruction of it does not apply as a defense stand your ground does not apply as a defense if you find that zimmerman was the first aggressor right but the judge would not allow that instruction the judge when he instructed the jury he did not instruct them that stand your ground does not apply if you are the first aggressor if he had of and the jury could have found he was the first aggressor then they would then he would have been convicted because the only way he really got off is when it got to stand your ground the issue the jury had before them was was was a very difficult issue and that issue was once they were fighting right uh did the d.a prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was not in fear of serious and imminent bodily harm right i mean that was the ultimate question they had answered because because if they if there had been if there had been a a instruction on first aggressor then you would have never gotten to that question it would have just been did he kill him didn't follow him didn't kill him but now you got the stand your ground in there so the question is is did the district attorney prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was not in fear of seriously imminent bobby harm when he used lethal force on trayvon and of course he couldn't because by that time zimmerman was getting his ass kicked as he deserved to get his ass kicked following somebody around okay anyhow i said all that say you know your instructions are a very important part of jury instructions are very important important part of um of the whole process okay all right so then then you go to jury deliberation once they get the instructions the jury goes back in the back they deliberate i think there's a video called 12 angry men i can't remember the last time i watched it you know i don't know uh if you know good if you can think of a good movie that just deals with it or a tv show that just deals with the jury deliberation part why don't you post it to a discussion board or something so so those of us can kind of watch it because your deliberation is can be fascinating okay all right and then um okay then you go to jury deliberation then the jury comes back with the verdict if the jury enters a verdict for a million dollars against the doctor right that verdict is that verdict a judgment no it's a verdict right a verdict a jury verdict so the judge can what he can enter a judgment consistent with the jury verdict or if the defendant files two motions one of two motions that we talked about already which is what one motion wasn't much of a new trial emotion promotion jnov the judge can actually even if there's a million-dollar verdict against the doctor the judge could say i'm going to grant the doctors doctor's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and i'mma enter a judgment of zero okay the judgment is what we collect on you know not the jury verdict okay all right and really without going to the board so now you got a jury verdict for a million dollar dollars you're not happy about it what do you have a right to do next you got a right to appeal right go to the north carolina court of appeals if it's a if you tried this case in north carolina superior court you guys know where that's located right north carolina court of appeals is located in what city raleigh not washington dc raleigh right and then the north carolina supreme court is located in raleigh what if you were trying this case in the federal court in the u.s district federal court where would you appeal it to in north carolina you appeal it to the fourth circuit court of appeals and then from there you will go to the u.s supreme court in washington dc okay any questions about that okay so let's finish this with this so you gotta let's let's say you got a million look let's not say this is a dollar let's say this is a million dollar judgment against an fsu student because the fsu student was was i mean no i'm not say fsu because i know you guys wouldn't do it i know you wouldn't do it but um my brother-in-law um used to work at western salem state university uh before he passed so i'm gonna use western salem state university let's say there's a wssu ram student that is drinking and driving and doing all this other stuff and texting and runs into the back of of someone hurts them real bad hurts them real bad and the person and their child their whole family is in the car because i know as fsu students fayetteville state university students i know you won't text and drive i know you're not going to drink and drive so i've got to use a student from another university it can be mr salem it can be uh what methodist it can be any university but i know a fayetteville state university student is not going to be drinking and driving and it's not going to be texting and driving right right okay i hear you all right so let's do this now okay so let's say they got a million dollar judgment against a a wssu student right and the student just like most students the students is straight out of high school and he's you know he's 20 let's say he's let's say he's 19 straight out of high school right you think he has much does he have a lot of money in the bank account anything like that no so he got a million dollar judgment how are you gonna collect it from him well he had car insurance well good he had thirty thousand dollars in car insurance how are you gonna collect the rest of this 970 thousand dollars where are you going to get it from i mean how do you collect it from them okay and the way you collect a judgment from someone is you do what we call a writ of execution you go to the courthouse and you say and you you find you follow the courthouse well let me back up first of all you file something called a notice of exemptions and you send them notice look i'm about to sell everything you have if you think that you have anything that's exempt from being sold under north carolina or or or federal law you need to file that notice of exemptions with the courthouse and if you don't file if you don't list the property you own that you think is exempt and if you don't get the clerk to approve that it has been exempt i'm going to send a sheriff to your house and he's going to take everything you got and we're going to sell it at a yard sale right all right if you file that notice of exemptions and they come if you follow that notice of exemption you list your car you list your household furnishes when the sheriff shows up at your house he says he's holding he says okay yeah they said they were going to sell everything but you have listed here your car okay you have your you've got all your household your property listed you got your bank account listed okay all right hey everything is exempt i can't take anything because you had a list that you had to prove as approved as exempt by the clerk or court so you know even though you own it i can't take it right but what if you don't file the notice of exemptions how can they collect from you they the sheriff shows up with a writ of execution takes everything you own he has a share a share of sale he sells it and whatever he gets for it he gives it to the people to satisfy your debt okay we call that we call that um basically enforcing a judgment out of your ass sets right you get the judgment out of your ass sets you up that was good right okay all right so that's it oh we finished we did all the way through the litigation you guys did good okay all right uh see you next lecture