Jules Epstein

July 13, 2023 | The Legal Intelligencer

According to a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling now accepted for review by the court, a decision somewhat under the radar because of it being pronounced in an unpublished decision, the answer is "yes." What the Supreme Court should say is a resounding "no."

By Jules Epstein

4 minute read

May 25, 2023 | The Legal Intelligencer

The case warrants a post-mortem to assess the tools of evidence law that may have contributed to the verdict.

By Jules Epstein

5 minute read

May 11, 2023 | The Legal Intelligencer

A survey of trial advocacy experts nationally asked for one line lessons, critical insights that encapsulate how to improve courtroom advocacy. The outpouring of responses was overwhelming and the advice essential.

By Jules Epstein

3 minute read

March 23, 2023 | The Legal Intelligencer

Civil and criminal court litigators—beware. A recent decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a criminal appeal, has radically upset the calculus lawyers must perform if they lose a motion in limine and want to decide whether to front (or "own") the bad fact. Doing so may now cost a litigant the chance to claim error on appeal.

By Jules Epstein

4 minute read

January 17, 2023 | The Legal Intelligencer

A cardinal principle for lawyers is that words count. A closing argument may run afoul of the law when "I believe" slips in; a case may be overturned when a judge ad-libs a jury instruction; and of course a jury may be misled when words are incomprehensible—the bane of most jury instructions—or simply dead wrong.

By Jules Epstein

7 minute read

November 17, 2022 | The Legal Intelligencer

Is trial advocacy art, science, or some of each? The answer is definitely the third, although the science part often gets lost in the shuffle or is alleged science with no data to back it up [think 80% of juries decide the case after opening" or "a picture plus words causes 60% fact retention"]. Finding the true science for persuasion takes some work but pays off grandly.

By Jules Epstein

7 minute read

September 30, 2022 | The Legal Intelligencer

Poor lawyering—came to the fore in a recent challenge to a death sentence imposed over a quarter century ago. The context was a claim that there was a complete system failure—the quality of court-appointed counsel's lawyering so poor that who was counsel was a determining factor in whether a death sentence was returned.

By Jules Epstein

4 minute read

July 06, 2022 | The Legal Intelligencer

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by five conservative colleagues, eviscerated federal habeas review in a recent decision, Shinn v. Ramirez, 212 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2022). To understand its devastating reach, one must understand how ineffective assistance of counsel claims are litigated.

By Jules Epstein

7 minute read

May 12, 2022 | The Legal Intelligencer

The following essay is from a compilation of cross-examination techniques and tools that will be published later this spring. It is this author's contribution, describing a technique that may be appropriate only occasionally or on idiosyncratic cases but one that in those instances is an effective if not powerful one.

By Jules Epstein

5 minute read

March 24, 2022 | The Legal Intelligencer

We have all seen it or read it in a transcript—the self-satisfied if not smirking delivery of the lines "were you lying then or are you lying now" after a witness has been impeached. And what follows is all too often an explanation that defeats the juxtaposition of the two differing versions of events—they get reconciled or justified.

By Jules Epstein

7 minute read