A closing argument in a medical malpractice case is a rhetorical highwire act, requiring a good attorney to ensure jurors understand key medical concepts while arguing how those concepts apply to the the specific case at hand. Spend too much time reiterating general medical concepts and risk losing the jurors' attention. Spend too little time on those topics and risk confusing the jury as you argue the evidence. In a $10 million trial over the stroke-related death of an emergency room patient, Mary Jaye Hall's closing efficiently combined complex medical information with powerful argument to strike at the theory of plaintiff's case. 

While strong testimony from an expert witness can be the linchpin to a favorable jury verdict, the converse is also true, as one ill-timed statement from an expert can destroy even the best-prepared case. In Morse v. R.J. Reynolds, an expert’s reference to the September 11 World Trade Center attacks led to a mistrial in a wrongful death tobacco case potentially worth millions.

Cross-examination of a sympathetic witness can be the most difficult part of a trial. It requires a deft touch to make your point without appearing as if you are bullying a witness, turning the jury against you. King & Spalding’s Jeffrey Furr, in Gray v. R.J. Reynolds, provided a veritable master class on that delicate balance.

Products liability trials often turn into a battle of the experts. With stacks of documents, intricate design specifications, accident recreations, and other data for a jury to consider, a verdict can swing on how convincingly an expert delivers complex, dry information. Even the best data can be undone by an expert who can't to explain it clearly, while strong expert testimony can be the most powerful element of a party's case. In a brain injury trial over Ford's Explorer SUV design, accident reconstruction expert Todd Saczalski powerfully supported the theory that led to an eight-figure plaintiff's verdict.