Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP, Attorneys at Law

Guarding Against Disability Discrimination Suits Arising from Employment

Posted in Discrimination, Employment

In hopes of leveling the playing field for individuals with disabilities seeking employment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability discrimination by employers with 15 or more employees with respect to terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. While the objective of this Act is admirable, employers are often apprehensive about interviewing and employing individuals who suffer from a “disability” (meaning a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities). This apprehension may stem from a lack of understanding the ADA’s requirements, and fear that a misstep will result in a lawsuit.

In reality, the ADA leaves employers broad latitude in hiring and employment practices, as they are only required to provide reasonable accommodations to enable an otherwise qualified disabled applicant or employee to perform the job. Further, although an employer is prohibited from asking an applicant about the nature or severity of the applicant’s disability, the employer may ask her whether she can perform the duties with or without reasonable accommodations.

“Reasonable accommodations” include providing or modifying equipment or devices; job restructuring; modified work schedules; providing readers and interpreters; and making the workplace accessible. However, if the accommodation would cause “undue hardship” on the employer, the employer does not have to provide the accommodation. Essentially, if the employer can prove that an accommodation will cause significant difficulty or expense, the accommodation is not reasonable and the employer is within its rights to decline to offer the accommodation.

Providing further protection to employers is the fact that courts will not second guess businesses’ assessment of economic conditions, the individuals’ work performance, and staffing needs. Willnerd v. First Nat. Nebraska, Inc., 558 F.3d 770, 779 (8th Cir. 2009) (“In general, it is not the court’s role to second-guess businesses’ assessments of general economic conditions, their own performance, and their own staffing needs.”).  As long as employment decisions are motivated by reasonable financial or business concerns, and not discrimination, the employer should not have to worry about adverse legal action as a result of decisions involving individuals with disability. Any employer worried that an employment decision may result in a discrimination action should consult legal counsel before acting.

Instead of being apprehensive about interviewing and hiring individuals with disabilities, due to fear of discrimination allegations, employers can leverage the unique talents applicants may offer, all while knowing the ADA will protect them from liability for well-founded business decisions.

The Nebraska Court of Appeals Overturns Lenient Sentence of Sex Offender Where Trial Judge Cited Teenage Girls’ Promiscuity as Basis for His Sentence

Posted in Uncategorized

In an unpublished opinion, the Nebraska Court of Appeals recently remanded a case back to the trial court and ordered that the defendant be re-sentenced by a new judge. The opinion arose out of the conviction of 21 year old Taylor W. Welty-Hackett (“Welty”). He pled no contest to attempted first degree sexual assault.

The plea agreement stemmed from Welty’s intercourse with a 12 year old girl — who he claimed said she was 22. Welty said the 12 year old friended him on Facebook and after he accepted, immediately sent him a message saying she wanted to meet him. She also allegedly instructed him to bring a condom to their meeting. Using Snapchat, she arranged for him to pick her up at a local Wal-Mart.

Citing migraines, Welty said he ‘self-medicated’ by using non-prescribed controlled substances and alcohol, and that he had taken some pain pills and drank several beers before  picking up the girl. He admitted to the intercourse, but said the 12 year old instigated it. Otherwise, he claimed to be too drunk to remember much else.

The Judge’s Statements During Sentencing

Under Nebraska’s sentencing guidelines, the judge could have sentenced Welty to up to 20 years imprisonment. Instead, the judge sentenced Welty to 95 days of jail (time served) and 4 years of “intensive probation.”  He also ordered Welty to register as a sex offender.

The State appealed the sentence, arguing it was too lenient and based upon improper, impermissible and irrelevant considerations. In reviewing the sentence, the Court of Appeals quoted portions of the trial judge’s comments on the record, including:

“It’s clear that, at least according to [Welty’s] relation to what happened, and he’s the only one apparently who related what happened to the victim’s sister or the police, that the 12 year-old was interested in having sex and contacted him for that specific purpose, even though she apparently had no prior knowledge of the person, except potentially by reputation. She was the aggressor, she made the advances. She actually grabbed him sexually and asked whether he was going to bring condoms.

That doesn’t excuse the act, but unfortunately, what it does do is remind the court of repeated instances it’s heard of over the last several years of occasions where early teen and preteen girls for whatever reason have decided that they want an experience and go out and force the issue with people that they know are older. And probably out to know a hell of a lot better. And these girls are encouraged to do so by their own friends, by some kind of ethic which encourages them to dispense with their virginity or anything similar so they can have the experience that everybody else is bragging or arguing about. . . .

 Sentences in somewhat similar cases have run anywhere from 2 to 4 years up to 12 years. And the defendant’s already served some 95 days in jail. At a minimum, he’s going to end up spending probably the next 25 years, if not his lifetime, functioning as a registered sex offender. . . .

I will tell you that in the past, Mr. Welty, probably a year ago, two years ago, you would be on your way to prison. But I’m going to try to bring some balance to the situation. So I am going to order or find you are a candidate for probation. It’s not going to be a particularly easy one. . .

Please understand, you screwed up big time, but I’ve got to find some way of bringing some balance back into the system, given the nature of what’s been occurring in this community. . . .”

The Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Court of Appeals agreed , finding that the trial court judge had considered improper  factors when fashioning Welty’s sentence. Particularly concerning to the Court was the judge’s “statements about the promiscuity of teenage girls and the need to bring ‘balance’ into sentencing sexual offenders.”

As part of its analysis, the Court referenced the 2007 case of State v. Thompson. There, a Sydney, Nebraska, judge sentenced a man who pled no contest to two counts of sexual assault of a child to 5 years’ intensive supervised probation on each count, to run consecutively. In doing so, the judge made reference to the defendant’s 5’1″ “small physical stature” and how it may cause problems for him if he went to prison. She was later removed from the bench after 52% of the electorate voted not to retain her.  (You can read about that here.)

In setting aside the sentence, and ordering that Welty be re-sentenced by a different judge, the Court of Appeals noted that “the victim’s appearance (whether she appeared older than her given age) and whether she was the ‘aggressor’ of the sexual contact” were irrelevant to Welty’s guilt (though, the Court noted, the trial court judge explicitly recognized that these factors did not excuse or justify Welty’s actions).

You can read the entire opinion here.

You did what?! Five Lessons for What to Do – and Not Do – As an Attorney

Posted in Ethics, Litigation Tips

When you practices in the area of legal malpractice defense, you get to see all of the creative ways attorneys get themselves in trouble, or find themselves on the receiving end of a malpractice suit or disciplinary proceedings. Most recently, I came across the story of an Ohio attorney who was indefinitely suspended by the Ohio Supreme Court after being convicted of unauthorized use of his client’s property (a fourth degree felony).

The 37 year-old attorney’s foray into feloniousness began in August 2010, when he met a woman at the county jail who had been arrested after marijuana was found growing in her basement.  The woman told the attorney she did not currently have the money to pay him to represent her, but was willing to sell a piece of land in order to pay his legal bills.  The attorney advised her to transfer the land to him. The client did so, believing the attorney would sell the land, take out his legal fees, and pay her the difference.  Instead, the attorney sold the land (netting $127,767 from the sale), failed to disclose the sale to his client, and kept all of the proceeds. He did so even though he had provided only $9,000 in legal services.  When she attempted to contact the attorney about the sale, he did not return her calls and canceled appointments she had made with his staff. He eventually told her she was not entitled to any portion of the sale proceeds because he had agreed to accept the land as a flat fee for his representation.

Though the client eventually received her portion of the sales proceeds (six years later), her recovery did not stop the Ohio Supreme Court from disciplining him for his numerous violations of the rules of professional conduct, including the rule governing transactions with clients, keeping one’s client reasonably informed of the status of their matter, and charging an excessive fee. Surprisingly, instead of disbarring the attorney, the Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspended him, but ordered that he could not seek reinstatement until he successfully completed or was released from the five year “community control” sanction imposed as part of his criminal sentence.

5 Lessons for Practicing Attorneys

The Ohio attorney’s situation teaches us some important lessons. Below are a few, as well as a few other key principles to guide you.

  1. Never steal your client’s money. Ever. Just don’t do it, no matter how dire your financial circumstances. Even an insignificant amount will get you disbarred.  And for the record, ‘borrowing’ is the same as stealing in the eyes of most bar associations. State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Ledwith, 197 Neb. 572, 575, 250 N.W.2d 230, 232 (1977)(“We have consistently held that a conversion by a lawyer of trust funds in his possession requires his disbarment.”); State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Becker, 226 Neb. 369, 369, 411 N.W.2d 361, 361 (1987) (disbarred for failing to pay $383 in client’s medical bills and for making intentionally false and misleading statements). 
  2. Think long and hard before entering into a business transaction with a client. Even if you think the transaction is a good idea, re-think it.  And if you still think it’s a good idea, make sure you comply with Neb. Ct. R. Prof. Cond. § 3-501.8.
  3. Do not overcharge your clients for legal services; and under no circumstances should you agree to accept cocaine as payment for legal services. You will be disbarred. State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Payne, 226 Neb. 727, 728, 414 N.W.2d 283, 284 (1987) (reciprocal disbarment where the attorney had been disbarred by the State of Indiana for possession and use of cocaine, purchasing and possessing narcotics, failure to appear for client at hearing and accepting cocaine as payment for legal services).
  4. Do not ignore your client. You will probably find yourself on the receiving end of a bar complaint. Also, if you make a mistake, do not falsify documents to try and cover your tracks.  You are inviting disbarment. State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Thew, 281 Neb. 171 (2011) (judgment of disbarment for multiple ethical violations, including failure to communicate with client and falsifying documents); State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Thebarge, 289 Neb. 356 (2014) (same).
  5. If Counsel for Discipline comes knocking, answer the door. Ignoring disciplinary proceedings will not make them go away. It will only increase the severity of any sanctions.   Thebarge, supra; State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Gast, 298 Neb. 203 (2017); State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Gerdes, 232 Neb. 845 (1989)(attorney who had been suspended failed to comply with notice requiring him to notify his clients and opposing counsel that he was suspended from the practice of law, and then failed to respond to an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court and disbarred from the practice of law for failing to give the notification, was disbarred).

You can read the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion at



Losing the Battle Before It Has Even Begun: Preserving Your Appellate Record

Posted in Appellate Work

Today, in its only published opinion (a 35-pager to boot), the Nebraska Court of Appeals reminded attorneys of the importance of preserving your trial court record for appellate review.  That constitutional argument, no matter how brilliant, will mean nothing unless you raise it at the trial court level, and give the trial court an opportunity to pass judgment on it. Also, if evidence is excluded, and you believe the exclusion to be error, you must make an offer of proof to preserve the issue. Otherwise, the appellate court has no way to assess the merits of the evidentiary dispute: “Without knowing the specific contents of the complete recording, including the exact language used by Epperson or the tone of his voice, we simply cannot say whether the district court erred in sustaining the State’s objection.” State v. Heng, 25 Neb.App. 317, 337 (December 5, 2017).

Getting an appellate court to reverse a decision of the lower courts is hard enough. If you fail to preserve your appellate record, however, you will have lost the battle before it has even begun.

You can find the opinion at

Preparing for the Future: Estate Planning for Parents of Children with Disabilities

Posted in Transactional

Parents of special needs children must be cognizant of special considerations in virtually every area of life. Estate planning is no exception. The stringent eligibility requirements of SSDI/SSI and Medicaid/Medicare make the child’s continued eligibility a paramount concern when determining the child’s inheritance. Even if the child is currently employed and not eligible for disability benefits due to the child’s income, parents must evaluate how long the child will be able to continue making enough income to cover disability-related expenses and the impact that inheritance will have on the child’s eligibility for future disability benefits.

To be eligible for SSDI/SSI a disabled individual who is unmarried can only have a mere $2,000 in resources. The resources cap for Medicaid eligibility is $4,000 for an unmarried individual. (For more information on eligibility requirements and the definition of a “resource” under the regulations, visit and These resource caps do not allow for a substantial inheritance by any means. However, parents of children with disabilities can preserve the child’s eligibility for disability benefits by leaving inheritance for the child in a resource-exempt trust or account. Parents should consult an attorney to determine whether to establish any of the following trusts or accounts for their child.

Third Party Special Needs Trusts are irrevocable trusts that can be established by parents, grandparents, legal guardians, or courts, but not disabled individuals who are beneficiaries of the trust. A trust may be funded with the beneficiary’s assets, but the beneficiary cannot act as trustee or control the trust. The beneficiary must be under age 65. At the beneficiary’s death, the remaining assets in the trust are paid to the government to repay any government benefits received by the beneficiary.

Pooled Trusts are irrevocable trusts that are established and maintained by a non-profit charity. A disabled person, parent, grandparent, guardian, or court may establish a subaccount for the beneficiary that is grouped with subaccounts of other beneficiaries into a single pooled trust. The beneficiary may be over age 65.

“529A” Accounts (known as ENABLE Accounts in Nebraska) allow disabled individuals of any age who are medically eligible for SSI or SSDI and became disabled prior to age 26 to contribute up to $14,000 of exempt assets per year to the account (with a maximum exemption cap of $100,000).

While these trusts and accounts may seem to offer disabled children the best of both worlds by allowing them to continue to receive disability benefits even after receiving an inheritance, the reality of these options is not as rosy as one might hope. Each of these trusts and accounts impose spending restrictions for the assets and limit the ability of the child to control the child’s own inheritance, which may be particularly disheartening to parents of children with strictly physical disabilities. Thus, parents must evaluate the totality of their circumstances with sound legal input to develop a customized estate plan that meets the unique needs of their family.

“Nebraska Nice”? Some Say Not As Friendly As Before

Posted in In-House Counsel, Tort Reform

If you track the periodic Lawsuit Climate Survey, published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, you know the 2017 rankings were issued last month.  The 2017 Survey constitutes the 11th fielding of the survey since the Institute for Legal Reform first began conducting its survey in 2002.

The Survey

This year’s survey was based on telephone and online surveys of 1,321 in-house counsel, senior litigators or attorneys, and other senior executives knowledgeable about litigation matters at public and private companies with annual of at least $100 million. They were asked to give each state a grade (A through F) in the following areas:

  • Enforcing meaningful venue requirements
  • Overall treatment of tort and contract litigation
  • Treatment of class action suits and mass consolidation suits
  • Damages
  • Proportional discovery
  • Scientific and technical evidence
  • Trial judges’ impartiality
  • Trial judges’ competence
  • Juries’ fairness
  • Quality of appellate review

These elements were then combined to create an overall ranking of the states’ liability systems.

According the Survey, a state’s litigation environment may impact a company’s business decisions, including where to locate or do business. Of the survey respondents, 85% reported that the state’s litigation environment is “likely” to impact important business decisions; 42% said “very likely;” and only 5% answered “very unlikely.”

Nebraska’s Results

Historically, Nebraska has fared well in the survey. In the prior 10 iterations of the report, Nebraska ranked No. 2 among the 50 states six times, and ranked 3rd three times.

This year, however, Nebraska dropped four ranks: from 3rd in 2015 to 7th in 2017. It is, in fact, Nebraska’s worst ranking since the survey began. Fear not, though, as the report indicates that there have been changes in the overall ranking criteria, such that the 2017 score “does not provide an apples-to-apples comparison to previous years.”

Beyond the overall score, it is telling to look at how Nebraska ranked in the individual elements. In most areas, Nebraska’s rank in a particular area was comparable to its overall rank.  But there were a few outliers.  For example, it ranked “18” in Enforcing Meaningful Venue Requirements; “11” in Damages, “15” for Juries’ Fairness, and “17” for Quality Appellate Review.

The State’s ranking vis-à-vis Quality Appellate Review is especially surprising considering that Nebraska achieved ranks of “7” and “6” for Trial Judges’ Impartiality and Trial Judges’ Competence, respectively.  It is unclear why Survey respondents believe there to be a disconnect between the quality of our trial court judges and the quality of our review at the appellate court level.

If you would like to review the entire survey, you may find it here.

P.S. As between Nebraska and Iowa, Nebraska is still “Nicer than Iowa,” as Iowa achieved an overall rank of 13.

Nebraska’s Summary Judgment Statute Gets A Facelift

Posted in Motion Practice

One of the challenges of being an attorney is keeping up on the law. Not the case law –the Nebraska Court of Appeals and Supreme Court publish their opinions weekly, here and here.  The day before the opinions are published, they even post advanced notice of their anticipated opinions, here and here. To make sure you don’t miss out on new developments, the Courts will even send you a list of the anticipated and newly-published opinions if you sign up at

No, the bigger challenge for attorneys is staying abreast of changes to the statutes.  Unlike the Courts, neither the Nebraska Unicameral nor the Governor’s office sends periodic updates. As a result, legislative changes may impact your daily practice of law and you may not even know about it.

This can be especially problematic when there are legislative makeovers to long-standing procedural statutes.  Attorneys who have been practicing for some time have the more common statutes committed to memory and may not be inclined to look them up. There is no need to look up something you already “know,” right?


Take, for example, Nebraska’s summary judgment statutes.  Did you know one of the provisions recently underwent substantial changes? Or that these changes have been in effect for a few weeks now?

For as long as I have been practicing, Nebraska’s summary judgment statute read:

The motion shall be served at least ten days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings and the evidence admitted at the hearing show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The evidence that may be received on a motion for summary judgment includes depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits. A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.

Besides replacing “issue” with the word “dispute,” the new version of the statute imposes certain requirements with respect to evidence.  Under the new § 25-1332, gone are the days of parties simply parroting the phrase “genuine issue of material fact.” It is now a “genuine dispute of material fact” – and you have to provide citations to the evidence in support of your position. Under subsection (2),

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(a) Citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, stipulations, affidavits, or other materials; or

(b) Showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Best of all, the Unicameral gave the statute teeth. If the nonmoving party fails to comply with the new rules, the court has a host of options available to deal with the party’s non-compliance.  This includes treating the fact as undisputed for purposes of the motion. Under subsection (3):

If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by subsection (2) of this section, the court may:

(a) Give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;

(b) Consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;

(c) Grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials, including the facts considered undisputed, show that the movant is entitled to summary judgment; or

(d) Issue any other appropriate order.

Of course, the statute also gives judges an ‘out’ by allowing the nonmoving party to address the fact; and the court can “issue any other appropriate order.” As a result, judges are not obligated to hold the parties’ feet to the fire. But for the more rule-oriented members of the bench, they now have legislative permission to strictly enforce the rules.

Oh the Humanity! What to Do When the Nebraska Court of Appeals Cancels Your Oral Argument in an Appeal PART II

Posted in Appellate Work

Cathy Trent-Vilim

This post is authored by Cathy Trent-Vilim, a partner in LDM’s litigation department.  This is Part II of her two part post.

Welcome to Part II.  If you’ve found your way to Part II, chances are you’ve received notice from the Court of Appeals, at one time or another, notifying you that the Court has elected to forego oral argument in your case.  As you learned in Part I, the Supreme Court has now provided parties with a procedural mechanism for requesting oral argument after notice canceling oral argument has been sent.

The question, then, is whether you should choose to take advantage of this procedural tool and request oral argument.  Certainly, the answer is ‘it depends on the facts of your case.’  However, when deciding whether to seek oral argument, consider the following:

  1. Was your case was procedurally complex?  If so, oral argument may help clarify for the Court the procedural background in ways your brief does not, especially if you were constrained in your review of the procedural complexity because of page limitations.
  2. Was the case was factually complex or convoluted?  Like procedural complexity, a factually complex case may be difficult to fully explain in a written brief and oral argument will give the Court an opportunity to ask clarifying questions.
  3. Has there been a change in the relevant law subsequent to the parties’ briefing of the case?  If so, oral argument will give you an opportunity to point out the change in law and how it impacts your case.
  4. Are there issues related to the standard of review applicable to your case (i.e., the standard of review has not yet been decided, or the case law is inconsistent)?  If so, oral argument will give the parties and Court an opportunity to discuss what the proper standard should be.
  5. Can oral argument assist the Court in determining the scope of the question presented?  For example, if the Court is deciding a question of first impression, oral argument may help the Court in tailoring its opinion to the issue in your case, thereby avoiding a broad or sweeping ruling which could have unintended consequences.
  6. Could the Court’s ruling adversely impact an entire business sector or industry?  If so, those issues may not have been fleshed out in the parties’ briefing, but are factors for the Court to consider in its ruling.
  7. Are there important policy considerations the Court should consider when reaching its decision?  As with industry consideration, you may not have the ability to fully address these issues in your brief.  Nevertheless, they are important considerations for the Court.

If one or more of these conditions exist, the Court may very well see the benefit of oral argument.  Do not assume that because the Court has elected to submit your case without oral argument, it has already rejected these considerations.  File your motion and put your best foot forward.

Finally, if you succeed in your motion, come prepared.  As the saying goes, you almost never win an appeal on oral argument; but you most certainly can lose the appeal during oral argument.

Oh the Humanity! What to Do When the Nebraska Court of Appeals Cancels Your Oral Argument in an Appeal PART I

Posted in Appellate Work

Cathy Trent-Vilim

This post is authored by Cathy Trent-Vilim, a partner in LDM’s litigation department.

Imagine stepping up to the plate, preparing to hit your first baseball of the season.  You’ve been looking forward to this moment for months, picturing it in your mind and practicing for what seems like forever.  Just as the pitcher gets ready to wind up, the heavenly floodgates open and a torrential downpour ensues.  Worse yet, the rains persist and the umpire calls the game.  Such disappointment!

Well, if you’re attorney, this is the kind of disappointment you feel when you receive a notice from the Nebraska Court of Appeals informing you that the Court has elected to submit your case “without oral argument.”  For appellate lawyers, oral argument is the functional equivalent of trial.  Certainly, reviewing the appellate record and drafting the appellate briefs can be exciting in their own rights, in much the same way as written discovery and depositions in litigation.  But oral argument – that is the pièce-de-résistance.

In days past, there was nothing to be done after receiving the fateful notice from the Court.  You simply waited for the Court’s opinion.  Recently, however, the Supreme Court amended Neb.Ct.R.App.P. § 2-111(B)(1) to allow parties to file a motion and request oral argument where the Court has otherwise ordered the case submitted without oral argument.

Under the new rule, parties have seven (7) days after the date of the minute entry submitting the case without oral argument to file a motion setting forth the reasons for why the Court should hear oral argument.  The opposing party then has seven (7) days after the filing of the motion to respond.  Once the response period expires, the motion is submitted to the Court for its consideration.

What, you ask, are sound reasons for requesting oral argument, especially when the Court has seemingly already deemed your case unworthy?  Good question.  Read Part II of this blog for the answer.

AAJ Regional Trial Competition

Posted in Cross Examination, Litigation Tips, Trial

Last week I noted that I would be assisting with the AAJ Regional Trial Competition held in Omaha.  I served as a judge for what was, in my view, a very close round between two good teams.  Here are some of the trial tactics I was reminded of:

  1. Do not assume the presiding judge knows your case as well as you do.  This particularly true when responding to an objection as to relevance.  In order to win the objection the judge must either independently see the relevant nature of the evidence.  If not, it is up to you to explain it.  Which inevitably leads me to number 2 . . .
  2. When making a relevance objection you should consider asking the judge to hear the opposing party’s response at the bench.  In order to explain why the other side thinks an item of evidence is relevant they must, in essence, give a closing argument.  If you allow the jury to hear opposing counsel do that, and the judge ultimately agrees with you and keeps the evidence out the jury may be influenced by the losing argument.  If the judge disagrees with you and ultimately let’s the evidence in the jury, without having the heard the explanation, may never pick up on the relevance and may not hear about it if it does not make it into the closing argument.
  3. You must try to limit an adverse witness’s ability to say what they want on cross.  You do this by controlling the witness who wants desperately to expand beyond the scope of what you asked.  Without a doubt this is the single most difficult thing for law students and many lawyers to learn.  But without doing so the evidence you want the jury to absorb is cluttered with the other side’s spin.  Because it is difficult many lawyers give witnesses too much leeway; hoping, it seems, that exposition will be short.  It rarely is.  In fact, the longer you let it go the more it happens.

I always find it rewarding to watch trials; even pretend trials tried by law students.  It can serve as a good reminder of what works and what doesn’t.  It is also nice to have the perspective of observer rather than being in the line of fire.