The Attorney: Beth Wilkinson, for defendant Michael Rubin.

Even when a case is about numbers, it's about people... at least as far as jurors are concerned. In other words, as important as evidence like earnings reports and valuations may be to your case, if you can't tie them to a face, you risk turning that critical evidence into bloodless data and white noise to your jury. That's why it's important to tell your jury about the story the people responsible for those numbers, which Beth Wilkinson did in a case that revolved around a business's valuation: Novack v. GSI Commerce. 

The Trial: Miller v. A.W. Chesterton

The Attorney: J. Bruce Jackson, for the plaintiff. 

Causation can be a particularly difficult element to prove in toxic tort cases. Time is often a plaintiff's attorney's biggest enemy in such suits. The decades that pass between the exposure to a defendant's chemical and plaintiff's illness can fuel skeptical jurors' doubt in your argument. In Miller v. A.W. Chesterton, J. Bruce Jackson uses his opening statement to lead jurors step by step from Ralph Miller's asbestos exposure to his mesothelioma years later. 

The Trial: Chapman v. Parikh.

The Attorney: Todd Miller, for the defendant.

The defense in a wrongful death medical malpractice case faces a mountain of hurdles, especially when the case involves the death of a child. The defense must overcome the jury's natural sympathy toward the plaintiff, as well as jurors' inclination to believe a litany of plaintiff experts second-guessing your defendant's medical decisions. Todd Miller's opening statement on behalf of Dr. Snehal Parikh is a powerful lesson in how to help the jury examine conflicting medical opinions with an objective, discerning eye.

We open each week by featuring an outstanding opening statement from our on-demand library.

The Trial: Linda and Steven Hatfield v. Ford Motor Co.

The Attorney: James Butler

A strong opening statement not only convincingly lays out your claims, it highlights weaknesses in your opponent's case. However, doing both without confusing your jury can be difficult, particularly in product liability cases where claims rely on complicated theories. James Butler, in Hatfield v. Ford Motor Co., masterfully contrasts his claims in the roof crush suit with the various theories he expects Ford to raise, bolstering his own case in the process.