When I talk about online marketing and social media to lawyers, I remind them that outsourcing their marketing is outsourcing their reputation. I point out that many people selling online marketing will lie to get their attention — to get you to read their emails or return their calls. And I ask them: If they would lie to get your attention, why would you trust them with your

Remember, it is not what you think about the Super Lawyers program, it is about what the potential client thinks! Thus spake Bart Taylor, trying to sell advertising in the Super Lawyers online directory in an email purporting to come from Houston PI lawyer Randy Sorrels: Lots of lawyers seem to agree with Bart. As exhibit "A," I would offer the trumpeting of bullshit "Top 100 Lawyers" "honors":

In Trial Theory I I concluded: Most jurors form a belief about the right result in the case by the end of opening statement; this belief will not be changed absent blockbuster evidence that they have not been primed to expect. ((This is not entirely correct. There is something else that will change jurors' formed beliefs. I'll talk about it in another part of this discussion.)) Blockbuster

…That night, someone sent an e-mail to Vietnamese groups alleging appellant was going to Vietnam to “bow down” to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Communists. . . . . . In 2014, appellant [Al Hoang] won the Republican primary for State Representative District 149. Nguyen continued to label appellant a Vietnamese Communist. In October of that year, Nguyen reported that appellant’s father committed suicide in 2007

To know what to do at any point in a jury trial, we must have some theory of how the parts of the trial fit together. In a felony jury trial with twelve jurors (and the requirement of a unanimous verdict) there are 4,095 permutations of verdicts that do not involve our client going to prison. ((Each juror’s individual verdict can be either “guilty” or “not guilty.”

TCDLA has given me the go-ahead to tell you that if you sign up for the voir dire seminar (which I am directing) or the cross examination seminar (which I am not) in Dallas September 8–9 at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel by the Galleria, you can attend sessions of the other. Sign up here. See you in Dallas. TCDLA Voir Dire seminar Dallas 2016

You may have noticed that I've added a widget to the right-hand column of "Cool Things I Really Like." It's stuff that I buy for myself, and can get more of if you use the links (or, with UberEats, the code "eats-nw0pp") to buy something for yourself. I just added a link to Nootrobox. I chew their GoCubes, which are coffee (with other sparkly ingredients) in small

I wrote yesterday about Texas's Law of Parties, and how it is different from Texas's Felony-Murder Rule. An observant reader emailed to ask: What about Enmund  v Florida? An excellent question. In Enmund the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Mr. Enmund's death sentence because he "d[id] not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force w[ould] be employed." So how is it

Wood was convicted and sentenced to die under Texas’ arcane felony-murder law, more commonly known as the “the law of parties” — for his role as an accomplice to a killing, which he had no reason to anticipate. (Hedayati: In Texas death row case, punishment does not fit crime.) That Wood "had no reason to anticipate" the killing should have prevented him from being convicted under a

TCDLA Jury Selection Course, Dallas September 2016 Come play with us in Dallas. Your mind will be blown, and I guarantee that you'll come away a better lawyer. Register here. PDF of poster, if you like.