Neil Anthony, a trial lawyer from Florida, joins us for an excellent interview on his recent verdict. He shares about how he built a meaningful connection with his client even through telephone and Zoom meetings and how he was able to connect with the jury using stories that resonated with them. Neil also shares his experience in terms of the changes in the trial due to the COVID situation.
Neil practices personal injury law in Southeast Florida, mostly in Palm Beach County. Neil handles a ton of auto cases, premises cases, slip and fall cases, trip and fall cases, as well as a lot of sexual abuse cases, which he considers like a premises liability case. He has also done a few negligent security cases, dram shop verdicts, and a wide variety of personal injury cases.
Today, Neil walks us through the basic facts of his client’s case and how he prepared her for deposition and trial, including a small piece in the deposition that actually helped him win the case.
As a trial lawyer, it’s 100% your job to teach the client the medical records because the defense lawyer is going to read those records in detail. They’re going to be ready to try to get and capitalize on a client forgetting something. Even if they know that the client simply forgot, they will still unfairly cast them as someone who doesn’t tell the truth. And you can’t do this work effectively without knowing and teaching the client prior medicals.
Get some powerful takeaways from this conversation including how to answer questions without holding back, crafting the right questions, and how to use stories that resonate with the jury.
In this episode, you will hear:
- The basic facts of Lisa’s case
- When Neil figured out it was a case that went to trial
- Neil’s approach to deposition prep
- The small piece in the deposition prep that helped him win the case
- How to answer questions without holding back
- Creating a meaningful connection with a client even through telephone or Zoom
- How he used stories that resonated with the jury
- How Neil did his voir dire during jury selection
- Asking for an amount that’s credible
- Changes for this trial based on COVID
- How to craft the right questions
- The jury verdict of Lisa’s case
Subscribe and Review
Have you subscribed to our podcast? We’d love for you to subscribe if you haven’t yet.
We’d love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast.
If you really enjoyed this episode, we’ve created a PDF that has all of the key information for you from the episode. Just fill in your information below to download it.
Supporting Resources:
You can learn more about Neil Anthony here: https://www.injurylawyers.com/partner-neil-anthony/
If you have a question or comment, please let me know: [email protected]
Episode Credits
If you like this podcast and are thinking of creating your own, consider talking to my producer, Emerald City Productions. They helped me grow and produce the podcast you are listening to right now. Find out more at https://emeraldcitypro.com Let them know we sent you.
Episode Transcript:
Elizabeth Larrick: [00:00:00] I have a very special guest today on the podcast, Neil Anthony, trial lawyer from Florida, will be joining us for an excellent interview on his recent verdict and talk a little bit about connecting with the jury and also some of the COVID things that he had to go through. So tune in for this interview.
Welcome to trial lawyer prep. What if you could hang out with trial lawyers and jury consultants, ask them about connecting with clients and juries more effectively. Then take strategies, tactics, and insights to increase your success. Each week, Elizabeth Larrick takes an in depth look at how to regain touch with the everyday world, understand the emotional burden of your clients and juries, and use focus groups in this process.
Elizabeth is an experienced trial lawyer, consultant, and founder of Larrick Law Firm in Austin, Texas. Her goal is to help you connect with juries and clients in order to improve your abilities in the courtroom. Now, here’s [00:01:00] Elizabeth. Hello and welcome. I am so excited for today’s episode. We have Neil Anthony joining us for a wonderful recording today about his trial that he had back during our pandemic days.
We’re still there, but of course this was well before our Omitron, Delton, all of our versions. So I want to welcome Neil to the trial lawyer prep podcast. Hello, Neil. Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you. Thank you for having me on. This is a treat. I am super excited to have you on. Neil and I have been friends for many, many years.
We’ve actually gotten to work together on a case as well. So I got to see the inner workings of Neil’s brain when it comes to being a trial lawyer and his brilliance. He’s been hitting them out of the park for a really long time. And so I’m excited to have him come talk about this particular trial, because I know it has a place in his heart, like all of this trials do.
So Neil, you practice in Florida, if you don’t mind, just give us a little bit of snippet about, you know, what’s your specialty. [00:02:00] Well, I can’t let that go. Like, yes, all of my cases have a special place in my heart. Even cases that I tried more than 20 years ago. And I still remember so many of the moments of them blow by blow.
Um, And what was really so important emotionally and socially and for the client and something really deep within them so many times. That comes out in trial that’s so important Back from my days when I was a public defender I mean, there’s like some really special trials from back in the 90s that I still remember And so yeah, i’m thrilled to talk to you about this one, which was in april of 2021 And yeah, I do personal injury law In southeast Florida, mostly in Palm Beach County.
This case we’re going to talk about was over on the west coast in Punta Corda, which is known as a conservative venue where it’s hard to get verdicts. I don’t [00:03:00] really, maybe I don’t have so much experience at that, but I’ve had good verdicts in smaller venues. And I enjoy trying cases in smaller venues. I do tons of auto cases, premises cases, slip and fall cases, trip and fall cases.
I’ve done a lot of sexual abuse cases, which I kind of consider like a premises liability case. I’ve done a few negligent security cases, dram shop, pretty much a wide variety of. I would say that’s a pretty wide variety. I know a lot of people specialize, but I know a lot of your dram shop verdicts. I think there was a daycare for, uh, that’s how I first met you was through that verdict, uh, many, many years ago.
Awesome. Well, I’m excited to have you talk about this one only because, you know, we are really looking at trying to understand for the audience a little bit about what are the COVID differences that you had with this trial, knowing you’ve had many trials before, but also A lot of the [00:04:00] things that you did with your client and then translating that to the jury.
Let’s just back up and give everybody a good glimpse. Tell us a little bit about kind of the basic facts of the case. My client was coming from Buffalo, New York, to visit her friend in Punta Gorda. She had like a week off in February from her nursing job. And being a nurse meant everything in the world to her.
She was actually an oncology nurse. This was so important to her because decades before her older sister, who was her hero in life, died of ovarian cancer. And so back then, you know, Lisa was either a cashier or working as a security guard. Or she had a job like that and she had two kids at home and that’s what she could do to support her kids and her husband who was disabled and she was the [00:05:00] breadwinner.
Well, when the kids got a little bit older and didn’t need as much at home care, she was actually able to go back to school for nursing and like pursue this lifelong dream. And so she gets into the nursing profession and finds her way into an oncology practice. And so in talking to her so many times, getting to know her, and this was a client that I really liked, and I just enjoyed spending time with her.
So, um, I mean, I’d be on the phone with her for hours and my paralegals would be coming in, you know, you have this, that, or the other to do. And I’m like, no, that’s fine. You know, I’m enjoying myself today. I’m talking to this client. So I really got to know her and I really started to figure out she was.
Doing for her sister after her death what she couldn’t do for her sister while she was alive She was helping people with cancer Helping cure people [00:06:00] and then I talked to her manager and I found out that she was like a favorite nurse For the patients and they would ask for her and I talked to her husband who talked about how much she loved being a nurse and how when she would Come home after a day’s work.
She would light up talking about her day and I’m comparing them I know how hard a day is, you know in any job and even a nursing job and to Light up at the end of the day Like it was really telling me how much that meant to her and I talked to her daughter and her daughter was saying things like my mom’s my best friend.
I talked to her every day on the phone. I see her as much as I can. So I really got to know her. And so she’s down here in Florida. Not on my coast not on the east coast, but on the west coast of Florida and an elderly driver A snowbird who we I think everybody’s familiar with that term snowbird. Just tell us what it is All right.
Well, it’s like, you know in Florida the people that come down for the [00:07:00] winter who aren’t full time year long residents here who get out of the cold, you know, and come here for the winter. So an elderly snowbird who I had figured out through Lisa, because Lisa went and tried to tend to her after the crash, because she’s a nurse and helps people.
The elderly snowbird had lost her faculties. She was lost on the road. She didn’t know where she was. She told Lisa, my kids left me down here for the winter. I’m here all alone. And it was really, really sad. But this elderly confused driver made a improper turn in an intersection and hit the driver door of the SUV Lisa was in, and Lisa experienced it as a very violent, scary impact.
However, the dent to her door was quite minor, and she was able to drive the car from the scene. [00:08:00] And in fact, Was able to drive back to buffalo in that vehicle before it was fixed a week after the crash or the accident and then She got to her friend’s house in punta gorda and her friend opened the door and saw lisa crying and saw her husband lauren and they were both shook up and Her friend like made her go to the doctor three days later so the defense took all that and Spun it into well, it’s a minor impact You Wasn’t injured at the scene, didn’t call for an ambulance, got out of the car on her own power, went to her friend’s house, didn’t see a doctor for three days, had her entire vacation there in Punta Gorda.
And didn’t seek any care until a week after she got back home in Buffalo. And so they just saw it as this is a no injury case. And they believed very strongly that they were going to convince the jury [00:09:00] that she was asking for something from nothing, that she was making a mountain out of a molehill, that she is a woe is me type person.
Who just wanted to lay it all down and give up. Okay, and I say that because She had neck fusion after this crash. She was never recommended for a procedure like that before and she didn’t get a good result. She had resulting nerve pain down her left arm and she couldn’t do all the things that she needed to be able to do as a nurse, particularly as an oncology nurse.
So she lost that. She lost the ability to do that. And it was horrible and devastating for her to lose. It’s like a death. You know, it’s like a death of someone who’s extraordinarily close to you. And there was just an enormous loss for her and enormous grieving and pain and confusion. And then they called her in the trial, a woe is me type person who hangs it up.
And they started to try to embed [00:10:00] that. In their four dire nine. I’ve gotten a little bit farther. No, no, no. I think it’s helpful. Let me just go back and ask a couple of questions to kind of clarify. And that is, tell us when it actually happened. What year did the crash actually happen? I think it was 2016.
I think it was February, 2016. And we tried it in April of 2021. Okay. So several years gone by. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I mean, five years. Yeah. Right. And when did you learn or figured out this was a case that’s going to trial? It was not going to settle. I started to figure that out During Lisa’s deposition when my opposition counsel was asking her questions and Lisa was answering so earnestly and I thought like giving very impactful answers and I could just tell.
That the defense lawyer wasn’t accepting any of the answers she just like the very next question would [00:11:00] come out as if Lisa hadn’t said anything at all And just the tone and the way she was pitching the questions at her and pitching her voice I could tell she didn’t believe a single thing That lisa was saying i was like wow, this is two completely different worlds And it was then that I was starting to feel like the case would go to trial And then when we did a few expert depositions for trial Because the doctor her surgeon was in buffalo.
So I had to do that by video and I mean this surgeon testified fantastically And he loved Lisa. And I remember the last question I asked him was just summing up, doctor, what stands out most to you about Lisa, about your care of her, about her condition, just about her, everything you’ve seen, what stands out the most.
And he said something that really surprised me. And I thought it was so powerful. He said, I’m just really sorry. [00:12:00] I couldn’t fix her. You know, I was like, wow, this guy, this guy cares. He like loves her. Like he gets it. And he was conveying the severity of her injury all through. And he just landed on such a high note.
And still, you know, I tried to negotiate with opposition council and nothing, nothing landed. Yeah. And so I was like, they’re not accepting anything that I can so clearly see is true. I believe a jury is going to be moved and persuaded by. And yeah, I mean, it sounds to me like, you know, pretty early on, at least like your intuition was telling you in the, in the client deposition, like, okay, it seems like they’ve already got their mind made up.
Then you really start moving towards trial preparation and then it just gets solidified more and more as you keep working up for trial. Yeah. A hundred percent. I want to go back to the deposition preparation. So when you’re preparing her for her deposition, I always get this question about, do you hold [00:13:00] back or do you not hold back?
Meaning with the stories and the examples and things, what is your general approach? And then did you take a different approach for this case? Okay, can I tell you something before I answer the question directly because I definitely have an answer to it But there’s something that was so huge in the depo prep that the whole case hinged on You know because when you’re doing the lower impact cases and the client walks away from the scene And then there’s the argument.
Is it a disc? bulge or a disc herniation. And they did, they need surgery or not. It’s not like a shattered arm or something. It’s not an injury that everyone agrees is indisputable. So the client’s credibility is so critical, right? So I had all of her medical records. And when I was talking to her about, you know, have you ever had neck pain before?
She said, no, I’ve never had any pain in my neck before. My neck has always been good. Well, I found [00:14:00] in a record where she had slipped and fallen on ice like three years earlier and she was diagnosed with a shoulder injury, but all in the records, it was talking about neck pain, radiating to her trapezius, radiating to her shoulder.
It was there. And so if I hadn’t really gotten all of her records for the deposition and pulled it up on the screen and showed her in a zoom depo prep, no, look, here’s the record. You’re a nurse, you know, what cervicalgia is. This is what they were saying. He says, she’s like, Neil, I don’t remember having neck pain.
I’m like, well, you, you must address this in the deposition. And even if you want to tell them, I don’t remember having neck pain, but I know that I was diagnosed with cervicalgia when I hurt my shoulder. It was a shoulder injury. To me, the doctor said it was cervicalgia. So she was able to come out and say that because of the depo prep.
If she had said, no, I never had a problem with my neck before in [00:15:00] my life. They would have cross examined her effectively and made her look like she was a person who didn’t tell the truth So I don’t think I would have been able to win the case if I didn’t have that small piece of deposition preparation No, that’s a huge piece because I think a lot of people like kind of skip over that whole credibility piece because We don’t necessarily do the back work get all those extra records or we just rely on you know, our client’s memory which You It’s not that they’re lying to us.
It’s just that we all have memories of goldfish. Now, like we are bombarded by things like we have to make space when things happen, you know, other things just come out of our brain. It’s not that it’s an intentional life. They really just don’t remember, but in these soft tissue cases in these, you know, low impact, and it could be a car wreck could be slip and fall.
Like credibility is just so important. I really appreciate you like keying in on that and sharing that. [00:16:00] And I can also say, I mean, I believe it’s 100 percent my job to teach the client, the medical records a hundred percent, because the defense lawyer is going to read those records in detail. And they’re going to be ready to try to get and capitalize on a client for getting something, knowing that the client simply forgot and then casting them as someone who tells the truth.
unfairly. So I think it’s my job to do it. And I can’t imagine any of us doing this work effectively without knowing and teaching the client the prior medicals. Absolutely. Absolutely. Super important part, but let me, can we make you answer my question, the stories and the, you know, the, the impact. stories and the, and the damages.
Do you, you know, some people are in the camp of thinking like, okay, maybe one or two, but I want to save a lot of this powerful stuff for trial. Other people just, Hey, put it out there. We’re not worried about it. Just give it all over to them. Which way do you lean? [00:17:00] Well, I see. Yeah, that’s a great question.
I don’t have plaintiffs hold back from their damages. from how they’ve been harmed physically, emotionally, vocationally, functionally, there’s just like, I don’t have them hold back at all on anything. And so even when I prepare them, they always come in with that. Okay, just keep your answer short, right neil, right?
Mr. Anthony. Just keep my answer short Only answer what’s being asked. I was like, well, right, you know If it calls for a short answer give a short answer if it’s a blue sky, what color was the sky? It was blue, you know, you don’t need to elaborate much more, but if it is How has this affected your ability to do your job?
Well, you can take a question like that, and you might be able to speak for five minutes without stopping on a question like that. How has this affected your relationship with your spouse? You might be [00:18:00] able to really talk in paragraphs and pages. And I let them know, you know, don’t hold back on things like that.
That’s my preference and choice. And I’m in that same camp. I wasn’t trying to set you up to be in opposition of me or with me, but yeah, I know I’m, I’m definitely at the camp that do we hold back for trial? And I always say, no, don’t hold back, you know, let they need to know this is You know, one, this is their life.
This is their story. This is their truth. Let’s get it out in the deposition trial or not, but also there’s going to be more. I mean, just like you demonstrated with your case, it took five years to get to trial. I mean, we, a lot of people are facing that same issue where it’s just going to take time because the pandemic or because criminal trials take precedence and there’s going to be more.
And I always say, time is on our side. As plaintiffs, because it is like it’s time will tell, you know, in so many ways. So no, I appreciate you answering that question about hold back or not. So you mentioned [00:19:00] early on really spending a lot of time with Lisa on the phone. Is that you said you spent a lot of time with her, a lot of phone calls with her.
Is that accurate? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And what I love about this is obviously she’s in Buffalo, you’re in Florida. So do you feel like you could make that connection with her effectively using telephone conversations? I really did. Yeah. I know I made a connection with her. I mean, she’s my friend now, you know, I mean, we, we text every once in a while.
I’m getting Christmas cards for life from her. I mean, I know we communicated. And got to know each other and connected. I mean, I could tell when I met her face to face in Punta Gorda, Florida for the trial, we already had a bond and her husband too. So, yeah, we were able to connect by zoom and we were able to connect on the phone.
In a meaningful way that wasn’t kind of [00:20:00] diminished because we weren’t physically in the same room with each other Yeah, and I just point that out because I know a lot of times we can’t all be together because of covet so we use zoom and We can still make those really powerful connections and a lot of times You know, there’s a mantra, you need to go to their house, you need to go spend time with them physically.
And sometimes that’s just not really possible. Maybe you live in different places or maybe there’s an illness or, you know, something else that may prevent that from happening. But I mean, you’re proving us the point that you’ve spent. a lot of time with her. And I think the word you used meaningful time.
All right. So you learned so much about her. You’re gearing up for trial. How did you know which stories, you know, that Lisa had would resonate with the jury or maybe fit in with your, with your case theme? Well, it’s just what resonates with me. Well, Neil, you’re not the jury. Come on now, this is a jury and not a [00:21:00] lawyer’s.
I always say thank goodness to my focus groups that lawyers don’t decide things. No offense to us, but no. So tell me, you know, what was resonating with you and then you knowing in your experience that a jury would, would resonate with. I mean, figuring out that Lisa was giving back after her sister’s death in a way that she couldn’t give to her sister in life, like feeling that and putting it in those terms, hearing the story about how she worked very low paying jobs so that she could support her husband and two small children before she could get the opportunity to get educated as a nurse.
and pursue her dream and having that taken from her. I can’t imagine how themes that universal and powerful and aspirational and then how the loss of those things is so traumatic. I [00:22:00] can’t really imagine that that’s not a universal The people wouldn’t universally understand that. So I didn’t really feel the need to focus group or test those on people.
I did not do any focus groups for this trial. It was probably one of the first trials where I didn’t do focus groups in a long, long time. Well, those things were obvious to me, I guess. Sure. And I think that the gift that you were, a couple of gifts that you were given from the defense were basically their hard nosed line that like, this was, Soft tissue that there’s no injury here and she’s just a woe is me person, right?
That’s right. That’s right You mentioned earlier. They started to weave that into Deposition questions and ultimately jury selection. Tell us a little bit about some of the examples from that jury selection. Well One of the things that I haven’t said I learned from lisa it bothered her so much That they were [00:23:00] calling her a liar You In other words, they didn’t say ma’am, you’re a liar But in their tone when they deposed her when they deposed her family members and friends and just like she knew That they were in so many words calling her a liar and it was terribly hurtful to her It was painful and she shared that with me And so that along with the love of her nursing profession and then the loss of it and how painful that was for her when I knew that they were going after this, she’s making it up and she’s a woe is me type person and she’s just hanging it up.
So she can collect a paycheck or collect a disability check instead of going to work. I started weaving into my vordire things like who here has ever been in a situation where their Spoken word their truthful spoken word that was important to them was minimized or disbelieved [00:24:00] or rejected By other people, you know, and it was like people wanted to talk about it And then I did the flip of that You And I said, and who, who here has ever disbelieved or rejected somebody and then realized they were wrong.
You know because I felt like it was important to Not cast the defendant as taking a position that no one would ever take because we all do that at some times But we do everyone has a responsibility to figure it out When it becomes very clear that they’re wrong and that’s what I knew the defendant was not doing it had become very clear that they were wrong and they were Sticking to that position.
There’s a word for that But I was setting up that part of it intransigence, you know, is the word, you know, and so I was setting that up in Fort Dyer because I knew that that’s what they were doing to her. So that started there. [00:25:00] And then I set up the passions and who, who of you all have passions for giving back in life, you know, when you finally get that opportunity and the jurors were really talking about that.
And then Talking about who have you have been fortunate enough that you’ve been able to pursue your life’s purpose and got them talking about that. Cause those are all things that Lisa was doing and that were taken from her. And so then by the time that he got up and did his, so everybody, everybody ever think that, you know, uh, somebody gets hurt in a crash, they might say things that, uh, you know, make a little bit more out of it than it really is.
Y’all seen that kind of thing happen. And then he didn’t really even like wait, like they just all kind of raised their hand and he’d move on and I could see he wasn’t connecting, but then he called her a woe is me person that hung it up in so many words, like, are you a woe is me person that just hangs it up when something happens?
Or do you [00:26:00] just get up, dust yourself off and get back on the horse? You know, he was like saying that you really use those words. Woe is me. Yeah, he did. And I wrote it down. I was like, he’s going to pay for that. Like I’m going to make him pay for that. Like, no, because mad. Well, right. Because I think, you know, I mean, I’ll admit to having a bit of not physical violence, but the feeling of violence when my client is.
Being betrayed like that and wronged like that. I take that very personally What I really want to know now is how did you make them pay with the woe is me? How many times did you use that? Oh in closing, you know, just again and again and again and again And that’s what they tried to sell you and did that ever turn true?
Did she ever do one thing in her life? That was a woe is me type person Look at the way lisa has lived her life from the very beginning all the way up through today What single example have they shown you in the evidence? They want to cast [00:27:00] aspersions like that in a public forum in a court of law with no evidence to back it up What do you do with evidence like that?
You know, so I didn’t say it exactly like that because in florida if you demonize or even criticize the way That the defendants have wrongly maligned your client, you’ll get a mistrial. So you have to be careful. But I said that in so many words. Gotcha. Yeah. So let’s talk a little bit about direct really fast.
How did you kind of craft your direct knowing again, that he basically put the target on her back. What was me, you know, painted the words on her back. How did you, had you already crafted direct before? Did you change any opening? Tell us a little bit about that? Not really. I mean, I had all the building blocks to build the wall of the excellence of this woman, you know, I didn’t need to use those words in my examination of [00:28:00] her.
Sometimes I have to be careful of being overly defensive. So I didn’t bring that up with her in her direct examination that he had called her that, and what’s her response to that. And have you ever been that kind of, I just showed who she was, you know, that’s a pretty big, it’s a pretty big decision.
Tell us about the time when your kids were small and Lauren was disabled. And what were the things you did to hold the family together? What were the challenges? What were the ups and downs in all of that? You know, and I had her talking about that for a while and then as they got a little older, did you make a decision to go to nursing school?
What went into that decision? Did you talk with your husband about it? Were you scared? Were you excited? What feelings were around that? Did you do it? Yeah. Tell us about that. I had her tell me about nursing school and then she graduated with honors. Wow. What an honor. You know, [00:29:00] what was it like to come home with that diploma that said you graduated with honors?
How did you feel? Were you proud? And then you found your way into an oncology nursing position. How long did you dream for that? Was that a dream come true? You know, and tell us about your work as an oncology nurse. And like it all came out and she started talking. Like she still was an oncology nurse.
Like everything was present tense. Well, first I have to mix the medicine and there’s these sleeves I have to put my hand into because the medicine is toxic and you can’t work with it directly. So you always have to be behind a screen. So I put my hands in these, you know, and then I see the patient and, you know, she’s talking and you can see the passion all over her and how sad it is that she’s talking about it in the present tense.
As if she hasn’t really [00:30:00] accepted that she’s lost the ability to do the work. So yes, it might have been a hard decision or a big decision, but it was one of those decisions that’s just very clear and like no other way about it for me, you know, not entering that defense is calling you names thing with her.
My feeling is she’s above that. I’m above that. We are here for her dignity and we’re not going to let the defense like rub any more of their dirt or smear into it. We’re not going to do that. If they want to get up and do that, they can get up and do that. I’m not going to do it right now. And you know, their cross examination of her was no more than 10 minutes long.
And I, I didn’t even do a rebuttal and I can’t like, I can’t remember the last time I didn’t do a redirect level plaintiff. I didn’t do a redirect because I felt like the cross was just, they never hit, they [00:31:00] never hit anything. So, yeah, I think that’s a really strong point to emphasize is, you know, how you make that decision.
If you hear something in opening or you hear something in jury selection and do you make that decision to call attention to it? But like you said, we didn’t want to call attention that if that’s what they want to do, let them do it or call attention to it, depending on, you know, what it is. But no, I appreciate you walking us through that because I think a lot of people would be drawn to do that because it does fit into the case scene that you have.
It does fit into, you know, the facts and, and how they’ve behaved for sure. Well, and I also wanted to say, because of the way I did my Vore dire, and I did having a life that’s Purpose driven and passion driven and then having your truthful word rejected, disbelieved, minimized, or forgotten. I had already laid the foundation of my case when he came in with the [00:32:00] woe is me stuff and picking yourself up and dusting yourself off and getting back on the horse with all that.
I think that that his voir dire would have really hurt Lisa. It would have our case because he was good at it. And It would have really struck. It would have been good for him and bad for Lisa if I hadn’t disarmed all that in my four tire. Did you know that was coming or did you just you made your plan for what year for what iron?
I didn’t know it was coming. Okay. I never tried a case against that guy before. I didn’t know anybody who had and I had no idea what was coming. I didn’t even know what he looked like. He didn’t show up until the trial. His partner of his did all of the discovery. He was like the big gun brought in to win the trial.
Gotcha. Well, keep it all the way coming through. Let’s go to closing now. And what stories or what themes did you repeat in closing that, that [00:33:00] Lisa had testified about, or maybe other people testified about to really tell the damages in the case? It’s hard to remember. You know, it really is. There’s one thing that stood out to me like in the whole trial more than anything else.
Um, her husband, just such a down to earth man, testified. I think the question was something like, what was it like for Lisa to come home from the surgery? still have the radicular symptoms and realized she couldn’t go back to work. He like, he’s just like this big guy with these big thick forearms. It’s just like, almost like his, like a Fred Flintstone, you know?
And he goes, his voice just cracked and he looked down and he goes, she was broken. And his voice broke and his voice cracked when he said it, you know, and I just sat there and it was like the, I just [00:34:00] lit up like my body lit up like I knew it was like, Oh my God, that’s just like, there’s a truth to that, you know, so, you know, you can be sure that those are the kinds of moments.
I was looking forward to talk about. In the closing argument, you know, because it’s like I just have, I could just redo my opening almost because the opening is such an argument the way I write it, you know, without being pitched as an argument, I could just redo the opening. But, you know, I’m doing those same themes again, and I’m looking for the points in the testimony that really lit me up emotionally in the trial, and I’m re showing like the pictures that meant the most.
And. I’m showing how insidious the defense theme is, and so it was a stipulated liability case. And so in Florida, when the defense stipulates the liability, you can’t say, well, they [00:35:00] only stipulated the morning of trial and they fought us for five years and now they’re only stipulating so that they can pretend like they acted nicely in front of you.
The appellate courts don’t let us do that. They’ll reverse it. You know, so the way I pitched it or said it was. Here is all this evidence of what happened to this woman and here’s all this evidence of the truthfulness Of her case and her dignity and her family’s dignity and all that she suffered and gone through All she wanted to do at the scene of this incident was help this confused elderly woman who she has nothing but compassion for But now these lawyers for the estate, they come in and they say, you know, they call her a liar in so many words, they criticize her character.
They tell you she shouldn’t be believed. And for what and on what evidence did they do that? And so when you have a case that’s so clear What do you do with evidence like that? Which is [00:36:00] something I heard like 20 years ago that like bob montgomery used to say that was like a refrain From like one of the biggest lawyers ever in florida bob montgomery.
He used to ask that question and i’ve never used that before But for some reason, it just felt right to me because it I wanted to criticize what they were doing. I wanted to show the jury like these people need to be punished for conducting themselves this way. But that’s a clear mistrial. So instead, I just said, here’s everything that happened.
And what do you do with evidence like that? You know, it’s stipulated liability. We know That Mrs. Anderson made a mistake and caused these damages. And this is how it’s been, you know, this is the trial that we’ve had over it. What do you do with evidence like that? So it just became like a, like a question or refrain.
And I did ask for money. I did ask for exactly the number that they gave us. And I put my medical bills in [00:37:00] I put my future medical bills in I put my lost wages in I put my future lost wages in and I asked for a number for Uh, you know pain and suffering and they gave us exactly The number that I asked for and I think I did a want ad argument, you know And I like want ad arguments for the intangibles for the pain and suffering because it lets me say what happened to her in a way that’s very direct and to the point and I say Something like and I’d have it written up because I write everything I say it would look something on the paper like You know, imagine that you’re in one of the old printed black and white newspapers, and if any of you remember those want ads, it would say wanted.
In this case, it would say wanted, must be in a vehicle and struck from the side, be injured, have a neck [00:38:00] injury, the neck pain will shoot down the arm into the hand. It will be progressive. It will worsen. You will have no idea when it will ever end. Surgical innovation becomes necessary. Bones must be fused with metal and screws.
The range of motion in the neck will be forever lost. The job, the career that was the most important thing will be lost. The relationship with the spouse will be altered. With the children will be altered. How much? Would it take to pay for that job and you can imagine that you can imagine how much it would take to pay for that job and something like that, you know, and so I think I said something like 350 000 in the past and 350 000 in the future.
So like 700 000 And that’s exactly what they [00:39:00] put in their verdict, you know, and then a lot of people will say oh well You know, then you ask for too little You know, uh, because if they only gave you what you asked for Like you could have asked for maybe twice as much but I don’t get too concerned with that because I feel like I have to be credible credibility’s more important than anything else in the world to me in trial And I have to pick a number that I feel like is credible and that’s what I felt like was credible So I i’m not going to second guess that But people did say that to me after, well, you know, isn’t that clear evidence you didn’t ask for enough?
I don’t know. You make up your mind. I’ve made up mine. I’m okay with it. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s also like clear evidence that they totally a hundred percent trusted you and took your word for it, you know, like. Which is really what you all you can ask a group of strangers to do when you’re making them sit in a courtroom for three or four days against their will.[00:40:00]
Right. I want to also point out something you just mentioned kind of on the fly there, which is this defendant had passed away. You went to trial in a pandemic. With an empty trial. Was there any worry about having to explain that or, you know, did the judge take care of that, that whole like suing the estate thing?
Yeah, the judge did take care of it. The judge just said, Mrs. Anderson passed away after this crash for causes completely unrelated to this crash. The law required that to maintain the claim. The plaintiff had to substitute her estate for her in the lawsuits, and I might have done a Vordire question on that.
I saw that Vordire unleashed in a trial maybe six years ago where I was second chair to the lawyer that had the case, and it felt like the jurors hated it. You know, no, I would never, no, I’d never sue somebody’s estate. [00:41:00] I don’t like it. It bothers me. But that just didn’t happen here for some reason, and I think In for dire so many times when we ask that question who here has feelings against And then fill in the blank pain and suffering large verdicts You know I’m starting to really believe that there are people that raise their hand and say I do Just because of the way that we ask the question and not because they really sit at home and like sit there smarting over these things like they’re really upset about them, you know, so I think that that’s what happened in that trial like six years ago.
I think the way the lawyer put the question and it was like, Oh God, yeah, that sounds really bad. Yep. I got a problem with it. Let me raise my hand. Yeah. I don’t think that anybody really had. just like a deeply held conviction against it. And so I think it was really important to me in the trial to [00:42:00] show how concerned Lisa was about her at the scene and to show how much Lisa was a caretaker for her at the scene and to show how much they talked and shared stories.
at the scene to show that Lisa was compassionate toward the elderly driver who died. So this wasn’t like an animosity thing. I felt like that was really important and part of why was because of the concern that you just raised. You know, suing someone’s estate after they’ve passed after they’re gone.
Yeah, I think a lot of, I mean, a lot of people have, you know, concerns about the chair and especially if they passed away. And, you know, I think one of the things you point out really clearly was how we ask questions, is huge, right? How we ask that question and jury selection will get a raised hand no matter what, you know, and the same thing happens when we ask our clients questions on direct, like how you word it, how the jury receives it.
Like it makes such a huge [00:43:00] difference. And I always try to encourage people when they’re looking at, you know, crafting direct questions is like, Rita’s just say that out loud. Like, okay, you wrote it out, but just say it out loud to somebody and get their reaction to you just saying out loud, because it might sound icky.
And when I say it icky, it means like, Oh, like lawyering. And like, like you’re just setting them up for sad story or sympathy. You know, we really want them to get sympathy out of the box. So you’ve led us all here. We’ve got like a drum roll. We know they gave you exactly what you asked for. So what was, what was the jury verdict?
It was a million four. It was a million four. And, um, how did it all break down? I mean, if you want to give us that you can, but we know they gave you exactly what you asked for, which is pretty awesome. Yeah, it was. So it was 75, 000 for medicals in the past, 47, 000 for medicals in the future, 700, 000 for [00:44:00] pain and suffering, and 204, 000 for wages.
So that’s pretty amazing. First of all, that like your pain and suffering number way exceeding your, your, your medicals. I mean, I think a lot of people would be really worried about your medicals being, you know, lowering the verdict, anchoring the verdicts is sometimes what people say, but that’s, that’s pretty amazing.
Yeah, you know, I think so many of us are taught that the past medicals if they’re small like that to leave them out Because they’re like you just said an anchor on the non economic damages. I just haven’t done it yet you know Here I am like 25 years into practice 20 years into doing civil trial law and I still haven’t tried it.
I still haven’t tried it I don’t know. I’m doing okay. No criticism here. No criticism here. We’re here. We’re here. I know, you know this, you know, our, our, this podcast is really trying [00:45:00] more to gear towards like being in tune with the jury and being able to give them the things that they need to do their job.
And, and, and. them listening to you. And I think that your verdict and the way that you built this case and took it to trial is a true testament that you listened, that you resonated with them and that they truly believed your client and what had happened to her. And that’s amazing. I mean, that’s all you can ask, right?
Thanks, Elizabeth. Yeah, that’s awesome. I think it’s important like for me to express though, and the reason I said what I said about the past medicals is I’m a lawyer who doesn’t think that there’s one way to do it or think that, oh, because I did it this way and got a good result. It was the best way.
You know, I’m always, always thinking it through again. I’m always making the decision over again. It’s never just like, hey, like, I know the best way and this is the best way and this is how it’s going to be for me always and this is the [00:46:00] rule. Yeah, I mean, I break a lot of rules that I know in these trials.
That’s one rule that’s broken. You know, another rule that I broke was never pick a juror that’s more injured than your own. I broke that rule. There was a couple of rules I broke. I think it’s more important to make the decision in the moment based on You use that rule as maybe a guide, maybe some information, but at the same time figure it out in real time and look at all of the other circumstances surrounding it.
I know that’s kind of like a very technical thing to say, but I guess I think that that’s super helpful to people because we have so many in a good way of putting it is there’s different sets of rules and how you should do things and how do we try cases now and things can get so confusing that sometimes we forget like you need to have those things in your mind but you really need to be in tune with and being present in that moment trusting your gut [00:47:00] like really listening to what they’re saying and you’re gonna get cues back from them if you’re being in tune and being present.
Yeah. And Neil has definitely taught me that being present and really listening and being in tune. I mean, this verdict is a good example, but I know you have many, many others, especially the case that we worked on together, where it’s, you are so immersed in not just like the details, but with your client and you know, your case backward and forward.
And I think it just really, really helps you when you’re sitting down to write things out or getting prepared. So one last question, pardon me, I should have probably started with this whole thing, which was, did you make any changes for this trial based on COVID or, you know, those kinds of concerns? I mean, everyone in the courtroom, including the judge and all of the courtroom personnel were wearing masks and all of the jurors were wearing masks.
I had obviously never tried a case where you couldn’t really see only, [00:48:00] you know, but only half of somebody’s face, you know, from the bridge of their nose up. So what I did is I kind of just decided I’m just going to go with it. We’re all the defense is in the same position. We’re all in the same position.
We all have the same handicap here. I’m just going to go with it and feel it through it and check it out and do my best with it. And you know what? I’m going to figure it out as I go. So I kind of had to tell myself that I had to like give myself a pep talk And say that to myself because otherwise I would have been mired down in that.
Well You know What am I supposed to do with them wearing masks? How much of the body language can you see when you can’t see the face? And like trying to figure all of the technical details of it out. I didn’t have time. I don’t have the knowledge, but I can do it. You know, I can do it without all of that kind of knowing.
I can do it intuitively. And I made a decision that I would trust myself to do it [00:49:00] intuitively. And, you know, I feel like I really knew those jurors through their masks. I feel like I all over them, their body language with those masks on and bore dire, and then at the end of the trial, like when I saw them outside, they waited for us to like, congratulate us and high five us.
And they were really happy for Lisa. We all had our masks off and their faces looked completely different than what I would have imagined them. So I had a whole. imagination of what they looked like. It was totally different than what they really looked like. So I would think that that, I would say that that would be the biggest thing was just trusting myself to be able to do it, to get through it and to understand people, even wearing a mask and making the decision to trust myself to be able to do it.
And that’s what I did. Did you practice at all, just like wearing a mask and having a talk in it and like that kind of stuff? No, because I hate wearing masks and I didn’t want to have one on any more than I had to. Okay. I just said to myself, you know what? [00:50:00] I’m going to just do it. One thing I did not do is I did not wear my glasses because the mask fogs them up and I can read without them.
I just read more easily with them. So I just didn’t wear glasses the whole trial. That makes sense. Yeah. Fogging up would be. Yeah. Be a, be a problem. So, well, thank you so much, Neil. This was so helpful walking us through this trial and just letting us dig through your brain about trying this case. And I think it’s a lot of good things here that we talked about.
So I appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us on the podcast. I appreciate this too. Thank you so much. It was fun. Thanks, Elizabeth. Thank you for joining us for this episode. Special episode with Neil Anthony, if you enjoyed this episode, please share it with somebody who you feel like would benefit also.
I would love and be so grateful if you would rate and review our podcast or this podcast on your favorite [00:51:00] listening app. And as always, please tune in next week for some new content on how you can connect with your client and the jury. Thank you.
