Marietta, GA--Life expectancy played a central role in last week's trial on damages for the catastrophic brain injury Ehsan Khan, 57, suffered in a 2013 tractor-trailer crash. Khan's attorneys, including Fried Rogers Goldberg's Joe Fried, sought nearly $25 million in damages, including more than $3.6 million for future medical expenses, based on Khan's life expectancy. However, attorneys for trucking firm Moore Freight Service, Inc. and driver John Teal argued damages should be reduced because the crash had significantly shortened Khan's life. 

Litigation over the cancer risks of Johnson & Johnson’s talc powder products is heating back up after juries delivered two historic multi-million verdicts earlier this year, with trials slated for September in Missouri and October in New Jersey. Courtroom View Network hopes to webcast both trials, and as a lead up we are featuring a guest column by Dr. David Schwartz, Ph.D. of Innovative Science Solutions, breaking down some of the key scientific studies and expert testimony backing up the legal arguments in these high-stakes cases. (Become a CVN subscriber to watch previously recorded and upcoming talcum powder trials for as little as $99/month)

Stock image.

CVN Georgia has covered million-dollar verdicts on the most critical litigation throughout the state, from headline-grabbing products liability suits against General Motors to traumatic brain injury claims. Three of the awards were handed down in the first five months of 2015 alone, including eight-figure verdicts against Emory Healthcare and Papa John's Pizza. 

Jury consultants have been a staple of litigation prep and courtrooms for decades. Regardless of your case or jurisdiction, you can now select from scores of specialists in every shade of psychology and the law who promise to help you choose the best possible jury for your trial. You can study articles on topics as narrow as how to flush out the juror who won’t stay off the Internet at trial or how jurors react to different camera angles at deposition.

With all this advice and expertise on juror selection and behavior, there has, historically, been scant intelligence on the one person with the single greatest impact on a trial:

The judge.

If Google is any indication, it seems nearly every attorney wants to improve in the courtroom.

Plug in the term “trial practice tips” and Google returns “about 11 million results.”

A search for “better trial practice” throws 20.8 million entries back to you.

“Cross examination techniques?” A whopping 5 million results.

Even something much more specific, “medical malpractice themes,” for example, delivers 131,000 pages.

These sites run the gamut of quality and relevance: from bar association-sponsored seminars featuring the best attorneys in the country to landing pages hawking poorly edited ebooks.