Jules Epstein

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

January 20, 2022 | The Legal Intelligencer

Despite familiarity with the phrase "less is more," lawyers can't seem to help themselves—they ask question after question after question. That this irks jurors is beyond doubt.

By Jules Epstein

3 minute read

December 16, 2021 | The Legal Intelligencer

Self-defense law Wisconsin-style and the conduct of Rittenhouse's trial offer easy explanations of how a not guilty verdict was reached either because jurors simply followed the law or made the defense story fit with their implicit (or express) biases.

By Jules Epstein

6 minute read

November 18, 2021 | The Legal Intelligencer

In Pennsylvania, death sentences may be returned only when the aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating proof. Here counsel stated the opposite, telling the jury that his client's life depended on mitigating proof outweighing aggravating factors.

By Jules Epstein

4 minute read

September 23, 2021 | The Legal Intelligencer

As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently stated, when dealing with hearsay "things can get complicated pretty quickly … At times, the line that divides hearsay from nonhearsay can be difficult to discern."

By Jules Epstein

5 minute read

July 15, 2021 | The Legal Intelligencer

A violation occurs even if it happens only once during jury selection. Yet such practices persist and now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will decide how such violations will be remedied if they are not corrected at trial.

By Jules Epstein

5 minute read

May 11, 2021 | The Legal Intelligencer

Why don't those darned jurors hear what I am telling them? Or, asked differently, what did that lawyer mean by giving such an incoherent opening statement—didn't they realize that details were missing?

By Jules Epstein

5 minute read

January 20, 2021 | The Legal Intelligencer

When a witness is impeached with a prior statement's inconsistencies or omissions, does that entitle the proponent to introduce the entire remainder of the impeaching statement? How is this to be managed if there were only two or three impeaching points, and the statement itself ran for over 40 pages and had material not testified to on direct?

By Jules Epstein

4 minute read

November 19, 2020 | The Legal Intelligencer

A quartet of decisions regarding expert testimony, two from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and two from the Superior Court, limit the role of the judge and the types of questions a witness may be asked.

By Jules Epstein

6 minute read

September 24, 2020 | The Legal Intelligencer

Do mask-wearing witnesses deprive criminal defendants of their right of confrontation? Does impairing the ability of jurors and lawyers to fully assess "demeanor" result in less reliable verdicts?

By Jules Epstein

7 minute read