Sublime

The chairman had introduced me simply by saying, "Here, in the flesh, is a living, breathing enemy of free speech, one who, by contagious hyperbole, was able to talk a jury into foregoing our sacred rights to free speech and to thereafter award his client twenty-five million dollars in damages for her alleged hurt feelings. That's justice, rig

In my argument to the jury in the Randy Weaver case, I used a similar strategy. I told the jury straight out what I wanted. I said, "At the end of this case I want us to walk out of this courtroom together—all of us." I pointed to my client. "I want you to free Randy Weaver. I want Randy Weaver's children who sit over there"—I p

24 Denzel Washington as attorney Joe Miller in Philadelphia (1993) Explain it to an eight-year-old. The “bones” of a case—its essential facts and structure, and the argument you are making in support of your position—should be understandable in simple terms. If you can explain it to a child, you can explain it to a jury.

Tell the Other what you want. If you are arguing before a jury for money, ask for money.

The simple questions of structure: And so, when we begin to prepare our argument we ask these simple questions: • What do we want? • What is the principal argument that supports us? • Why should we win what we want? That is, what facts, what reasons, what justice exists to support the thesis? • And, at last, what is the story that best makes all of

I argue that when my argument begins with me, when it emanates from my authority, it will be unique among all arguments.

Even the most inventive, aggressive, and original legal argument is constructed upon that which came before—prior court cases, constitutions, and existing statutes and regulations.