Rebuttal of a closing argument can be one of the most difficult elements of trial for a plaintiff's attorney. It's your last opportunity to speak on behalf of your client and the last words jurors will hear from either side before they deliberate. However, the rebuttal's focus on a defense argument typically given moments earlier means you don't have the preparation time you have for your initial summation. In Van Zyl v. Fain, Keith Mitnik delivered a powerful rebuttal to the defense's damage argument, and ultimately won nearly $19 million for his client. 

Daniel Seidman tells jurors Robert Shulman was so dependent on nicotine that he suffered withdrawal symptoms similar to clinical depression when he tried to quit smoking. Shulman, 94, claims his nicotine addiction caused his bladder cancer and heart and pulmonary disease. 

Matthew Schultz delivers closing arguments in his client Micah Danielson's suit against Philip Morris for the lung cancer death of her husband, Lamar. Jurors awarded $325,000 in punitives Thursday, bringing the total jury verdict to $650,000. 

Pensacola, FL—Philip Morris was found liable for $325,000 in punitive damages Thursday for its role in the lung cancer death of a 42-year-old mortician who smoked the company's Marlboro cigarettes for most of his life. Danielson v. Philip Morris, 2007-CA-002737.

William Geraghty delivers closing arguments on behalf of Philip Morris in Micah Danielson's suit against the company. Danielson's husband, Lamar Danielson, died of lung cancer at 42, after 25 years of smoking primarily Philip Morris cigarettes. Jurors awarded $325,000, plus potential punitive damages, to Danielson's family Wednesday. 

Pensacola, FL—Jurors Wednesday found Philip Morris responsible for the nicotine addiction and cancer death of a 42-year-old Florida mortician who smoked for more than 25 years. But, they failed to follow instructions to award more than $2.3 million in economic damages, issuing only $325,000 in compensatories, plus potential punitives, instead. Danielson v. Philip Morris, 2007-CA-002737.

When credibility questions are central to a case, objective, expert testimony supporting your client's version of events becomes even more critical. The slightest deviation between your client's story and your expert's testimony can tilt a verdict. In Valdes v. U.S. Sugar Corp., the difference between a railway worker's details of a train yard accident and the testimony of his accident reconstruction expert may have been the key to a defense verdict in his $2 million suit.