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. 

Less than 100 seconds of testimony changed the course of a $100 million case last month. 

Today's CVN Engle progeny trading card features an Atlanta-based attorney who won his first three Engle trials in front of CVN cameras.

Defending a product liability suit involving a fatal accident carries a host of built-in difficulties. Jurors are inherently sympathetic to the family of the victim and prone to believing what may be 20-20 hindsight and post-incident product criticism. To overcome these hurdles, a strong defense must both delve into the technical details that led to a manufacturer’s decision and highlight those details with clear, powerful language that makes the decision logical. In Emmanuel v. Ford Motor Co., Kevin Schirferl uses his powerful closing argument to persuade that Ford’s design decisions did not cause Jonathan Emmanuel’s death.