I heard something good last week: "The presumption of innocence means 'he didn't do it until they prove he did.'"(I doubt that the speaker, Houston trial lawyer Rusty Hardin, had quantum mechanics in mind when he said that [see Schrödinger's Jury], but I think his is a quantum view of the Golden Thread.)

I was about to write something about "legal speaking" and the use of archaic locutions like "may it please the court," when I remembered the use Houston criminal defense legend Richard "Racehorse" Haynes put that phrase to when he was introducing Chicago criminal defense legend (and master cross-examination teacher) in 1998: Click here for the mp3. This is the first track in the 7-cd audio recording of

(I posted this last month inadvertently before I had rounded out the thought. No idea how. I do try hard to provide quality product.) Defenders seek to prevent suffering, as do physicians. Unlike physicians, however, defenders are trying to prevent suffering that someone else is deliberately trying to cause. Causing suffering to our clients is someone's idea of justice. If we were to make our own judgments

Gideon commented on my earlier Group Voir Dire post: Thanks for the insight! It seems that both have their advantages. I'm still concerned that people in group sessions might not express their true feelings in the presence of others. For example, if someone has a strong feeling that anyone who is arrested is guilty, might not reveal that if the person before them has said that they

I think a lawyer should never pick a jury alone (it takes at least four eyes to keep track of jurors' body language). I also like to watch other lawyers' voir dire efforts. So whenever I get a chance I help out other defense lawyers when they pick juries. Even when it's bad, I learn something. Here's a rule of thumb to tell a good voir dire

Jamie Spencer is taking a poll on criminal-defense related blogs. I look forward to seeing the results -- I'm sure I'm missing lots of good stuff in blogs that I don't yet know about.

Gideon asks how jurisdictions with group voir dire handle "jurors’ reluctance to disclose sensitive or embarrassing information in the presence of the entire jury panel and courtroom observers." The answer to his question in Texas, where all non-capital voir dire is done in groups (generally of 20 or more potential jurors for a 6-person misdmeanor jury and of 50 or more potential jurors for a 12-person felony

Lawyers love publicity. We all like to get our names in the newspaper. Right or wrong, we think publicity going to get us more business. If we didn't love publicity, we probably wouldn't have chosen this profession. Publicity never hurts the lawyer. But we have a duty to our clients that has to take priority over our love of publicity. Sometimes -- often -- usually -- publicity

No blogging yesterday because I was (a) being interviewed on-camera for 3 hours by a guy from Faces Media to create a few short videos for my website; and (b) preparing for and attending the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association's annual banquet, at which I was sworn in as president-elect, I gave the outgoing president a thank-you gift, and I got to introduce our keynote speaker, one

Some of the most nerve-wracking times in my life -- and, I think, in any trial lawyer's life -- are those moments between the jury's signal that they have a verdict (here in Houston, two buzzes on the jury room buzzer) and the reading of the verdict. They're almost surreal moments, in which I know that my client's future has been decided by six or twelve people