Latest / Brian White Podcast / What Would a Trial Lawyer Do? Winning in the Courtroom

Transcript

What Would a Trial Lawyer Do? Winning in the Courtroom · Brian White Podcast

0:00
Last year, I recovered over $100
0:02
million. Sometimes in the courtroom, it
0:04
is far more boring than any movie. First
0:08
rule of [music] cross is that you make
0:10
your questions one fact-leading
0:14
questions, okay? It's an opportunity for
0:17
you as the attorney to be able to stand
0:19
up and walk around the table into the
0:22
front of your table. It is normal for
0:25
people to be inconsistent with the
0:27
recollection of what happened.
0:29
>> You can't beat the man.
0:31
>> Auto accident? You better call attorney
0:33
Brian White.
0:34
>> Who's Brian White?
0:35
>> Yo, hablo el abogado Brian Blanco.
0:37
>> Better than just a law license, he's
0:39
board certified.
0:40
>> Solo [music] el 3% de los abogados de
0:42
Texas son certificados por la barra de
0:45
abogados.
0:46
>> You've been in an accident, so call
0:48
attorney Brian White.
0:49
Go to attorneybrianwhite.com
0:51
and set up your free consultation today.
0:55
>> Welcome to the Brian White podcast.
0:57
Thanks for tuning in.
0:58
>> Welcome to the Brian White podcast. I am
1:01
a Houston-based trial lawyer that
1:03
focuses on personal injury. I've been
1:05
doing this for over 20 years. Last year,
1:08
I recovered over $100 million.
1:11
This is my podcast, and in these
1:13
episodes, we're talking about what would
1:15
a trial lawyer do. Real quick, I wanted
1:17
to pause and quickly say thank you to
1:20
our sponsor of voir dire. This is what
1:22
we call it in Texas. It's called voir
1:23
dire. Everywhere else in the country,
1:25
it's called voir dire.
1:26
So, go to voirdire.com where you can
1:29
pick up ties and different clothes that
1:32
are for attorneys. If you're going to be
1:34
in front of a jury, and you want to wear
1:37
something that looks really good, but
1:39
not too good like an Armani suit,
1:41
voirdire.com.
1:43
Okay. So, in this episode, we're talking
1:46
about
1:47
>> winning in the courtroom.
1:48
>> Winning in the courtroom, and this is
1:50
part two. Part
1:52
>> Part yes, follow up from the last
1:54
episode.
1:55
>> Okay.
1:55
>> So, we're talking winning in the
1:57
courtroom, and we're going to start with
1:58
cross-examination.
2:00
>> Ooh, okay. Cross-examination.
2:02
>> Is it really as dramatic as the movies
2:05
make it look?
2:06
>> Well, so sometimes in the courtroom it
2:09
is far more boring than any movie. Um
2:12
but sometimes it's more exciting. And
2:15
the reason why is because,
2:16
you know, movies are very short. So,
2:18
that little part is like uh
2:21
you know,
2:22
5 minutes or something um on TV, but in
2:26
real life um it could be a whole day.
2:30
It's a completely different thing.
2:32
Um and for that reason, I don't like to
2:34
watch um lawyer TV shows too much
2:36
because it's like so frustrating. Like,
2:37
you don't get to do that in like a half
2:39
of you know, it's like the whole case
2:40
goes in 1 day. Now, that's not
2:43
how it is.
2:44
Um but your question is kind of got off
2:46
a little bit.
2:47
>> Is it dramatic as it seems?
2:48
>> Is it as dramatic as it seems? So, yes
2:51
and no. Yes in that it takes longer, but
2:54
sometimes the pressure builds. The
2:56
pressure builds. And everyone is like
2:58
and you can feel the tension. And
3:00
everyone, you know, is able to see the
3:03
witness, and you see that little bit of
3:05
sweat come down their face. That's way
3:07
better than a movie.
3:09
>> So, what's the actual purpose of
3:10
cross-examination?
3:12
>> Cross-examination is when an attorney
3:15
questions um someone who's adverse,
3:18
who's on the other side of the case from
3:20
them, okay? So,
3:22
um
3:23
so
3:24
the objective is to you know, try to
3:28
prove as many points as you can, okay?
3:31
What you want to do is you want for the
3:33
jury to really pay attention to the
3:36
question
3:37
more than the answer, okay? So, when you
3:41
cross-examine a person, it's almost more
3:44
about
3:46
the facts and the lawyer than what the
3:48
witness even has to say.
3:51
Um and so, there's some ways to do that.
3:54
Um, and I've I've heard podcast, you
3:56
know, believe it or not, where they've
3:58
had um, people on and that have been
4:01
experts in trial law talk about
4:04
cross-examination
4:05
and they got it so wrong that I couldn't
4:07
believe it. I was like, I've been
4:08
hearing about this guy forever and um,
4:11
they get it so wrong. You're like, this
4:13
is unbelievable. Okay, so if you do
4:17
cross,
4:18
the first thing, first rule of cross is
4:21
that you make your questions one
4:25
fact-leading questions, okay? You just
4:28
put one fact and it's a leading
4:30
question. Never ask an open-ended if
4:33
Well, not never. I mean, you can ask
4:36
open-ended in the beginning so that you
4:38
can get people to say things which you
4:40
can then later come and like cut up with
4:43
your one fact-leading questions. It's
4:46
also very important.
4:48
The one fact that you contain in your
4:51
question on cross must not use a quibble
4:55
word. So, a quibble word is one where a
4:57
person could like quibble with you about
4:59
it. It's like it gives them an out. So,
5:01
what you want is a question that is so
5:03
simple
5:04
and so tight that they have to answer
5:07
with a yes or a no. Now, they don't have
5:11
to. If they're smart, you know, they can
5:13
they can explain their answer and kind
5:16
of,
5:17
you know, try to mess up your question
5:18
with a long, gooey answer. But then you
5:21
get to come back and say, you know, sir,
5:22
that's a yes or no question. You know,
5:24
can you just give me just, you know, And
5:26
then of course you'll get like
5:26
objection, you know, blah blah but
5:28
you're making your point which is I'm
5:30
asking a simple question and you are
5:33
being evasive. Okay?
5:36
Second thing, um, is in
5:38
cross-examination,
5:40
if you're in the courtroom,
5:42
it's an opportunity for you as the
5:45
attorney to be able to stand up and you
5:47
can actually if if you have a
5:50
table, you can actually stand up and
5:53
walk around the table into the front of
5:56
your table.
5:57
Um you can't do that when you're
5:59
presenting a client or anything else,
6:02
but if it's cross, you get to actually
6:04
stand up and walk into the center of the
6:07
courtroom. You can actually
6:08
wander up into the center of the
6:10
courtroom, what they call the well.
6:12
And what happens is that the jury can
6:16
now see you, you know, okay? And
6:18
remember that cross-examination is more
6:21
about the questions that you're asking,
6:23
you know, than the answers because
6:26
you're just telling the story from, you
6:29
know, your perspective, which hopefully
6:30
is true.
6:31
And hopefully they're trying to like
6:34
evade your questions.
6:35
And um so that's the second thing is
6:38
don't sit behind, you know, your
6:42
table. Get up
6:44
and cross-examine where people can see
6:47
you.
6:48
So they understand when the point was
6:50
made, okay? A big part of um any kind of
6:52
questioning anyone is body language.
6:56
So um if if you stand up, it helps you
7:00
to be able to get the body language.
7:01
Like you don't want to be like crazy
7:03
about it, but if a person um you know,
7:06
is completely evading a question, you
7:08
can kind of like, you know,
7:10
do a little thing, you know, so but you
7:13
can't really do that if you're sitting
7:14
down.
7:15
Um
7:16
you can't go overboard with it, um but
7:19
>> Is destroying the witness always the
7:21
goal?
7:22
>> Destroying the um adverse witness is
7:25
always the goal. Now,
7:27
you don't want to um you know, look like
7:29
a jerk. Um now there could be times when
7:32
you have permission from the jury to be
7:34
a jerk, but here this is very important
7:37
and this is also important on cross. Um
7:39
is
7:40
you cannot be a jerk to a witness unless
7:45
the jury has given you permission. And
7:47
usually they don't. So, they expect
7:51
for
7:53
witnesses to be rude, but they do not
7:55
expect for the attorney to be rude.
7:58
It's better for you to sort of like play
8:00
it off. And so, but what you want to do
8:02
what what your goal is is to get the
8:05
jury on your side. You want to persuade
8:07
them, right? This whole game is about
8:09
persuading a group of people. So, it's
8:11
like
8:12
martial arts. If you want a person to go
8:14
that way,
8:15
you don't push them that way, because
8:17
what's going to happen is they're going
8:18
to push back, okay? If you want a person
8:20
to go that way in martial arts, you just
8:23
tug them this way. Then what they do is
8:25
they walk that way, okay? It's the same
8:27
way about persuading people in the
8:29
courtroom. Which means that
8:32
you kind of play it off a little bit,
8:34
and you let people be rude to you. You
8:36
let the bad facts come out. And you, you
8:40
know, you can react to them. You can act
8:41
kind of confused. But if you're sort of
8:43
like confused by the bad facts, but the
8:45
jury's not confused, and they understand
8:47
the person's lying, they'll start
8:49
rooting for you. They'll be like, "Come
8:50
on, Brian. You know, start tearing this
8:52
guy up." And that's what you want. You
8:54
want to get them on your side. You
8:56
always want for the jury to be up here,
8:59
and for you to be down here. You never
9:01
want to be the guy in the courtroom
9:03
yelling about facts, but oh, somebody
9:05
was lying, AND
9:08
IF THEY don't care about that, and
9:10
you're the person doing that, you're
9:12
going to destroy your credibility. And
9:14
you're going to make yourself the jerk
9:15
in the courtroom. So, don't do that. You
9:17
always want the jury to be up here.
9:20
So, um
9:21
>> What's more effective, um
9:23
getting angry or staying calm?
9:25
>> It's more effective to be calm. Um it's
9:29
very ineffective to be angry, you know,
9:31
to a juror, it looks uh
9:35
kind of like you're a jerk, and that
9:37
maybe you're not
9:38
um, you know, emotionally intelligent
9:41
and possibly that there's something
9:43
wrong with your case.
9:45
>> So, can being too aggressive make the
9:47
jury sympathize with the other witness?
9:49
>> Yes, 100%. If you're um, on
9:52
cross-examination and I've had this
9:54
happen. Um,
9:55
so, um, I had a case where it was a
10:00
drunk driving case. And before trial, I
10:02
went and I took the deposition of the
10:04
drunk driver, okay? And it was this
10:07
lady. And she was not sorry for what
10:08
happened at all. And she was super rude
10:12
and even in that uh,
10:16
deposition, I was like, "You realize I'm
10:18
going to play this in in the courtroom."
10:20
And she was like, "Yeah, you know." And
10:21
she was just she was horrible, okay? I'm
10:24
like, "Okay, I'm going to try this case,
10:25
you know. This this is going to be fun."
10:28
So, but this lady, turns out she wasn't
10:31
completely stupid. She was smart. So,
10:33
she shows up, completely different
10:36
personality. And she's so nice. And I'm
10:39
And but I'm like, I'm still mad about
10:42
how she spoke to me, you know.
10:44
So,
10:46
um,
10:46
I come out of the gate just like, "Chop,
10:49
chop, chop, chop, chop, chop." And I
10:52
heard someone in the jury groan.
10:56
Like, "Oh." Like, you know what I'm
10:57
saying? So, I completely lost the jury
11:02
because I was angry and they weren't
11:05
there. So, it didn't matter at that
11:07
point almost what she said. I was sort
11:10
of like a bully and she was the poor
11:12
lady that even though she was in, you
11:13
know, like a drunk driving crash, maybe
11:15
she ain't so bad. This guy's running her
11:17
through the mud.
11:19
Don't do that.
11:20
>> What's the biggest mistake inexperienced
11:22
lawyers make on cross?
11:24
>> The biggest mistake that inexperienced
11:27
lawyers make on cross is that they ask
11:29
open-ended questions. Cross-examination
11:32
is for you to make your points and if
11:35
the person answers it truthfully, great.
11:37
If they don't, even better. If they
11:39
evade the question, that's also good.
11:42
>> How do you know when you've gotten
11:43
enough and you should sit down?
11:47
>> So, that is uh very important. So,
11:50
look, if you're in trial and you get
11:54
everything that you need, you need to
11:56
sit your butt down.
11:58
Um
11:59
90% of the time, if you keep asking
12:02
questions, you ask one question too
12:04
many, they're going to come back and fix
12:07
everything bad that they said and
12:09
destroy all the progress that you made.
12:12
Sit down, preserve it, you're done. It's
12:15
way more powerful, too. You know, think
12:17
about it. If it keeps going on and on
12:18
and then you end with some point that's
12:21
not even that strong. They're like,
12:23
"That's what he ended on?" End on that
12:25
powerful, strong point and get the heck
12:28
out of there.
12:29
>> Have you done that?
12:30
>> I've done both, yes.
12:31
I've done both.
12:32
>> Um so, moving on to something different,
12:34
the expert witness.
12:36
The insurance company puts an expert on
12:38
the stand who says, "In my opinion, this
12:40
accident did not cause the plaintiff's
12:43
injuries." Now what?
12:45
How do you attack someone who knows more
12:47
about medicine than you do?
12:49
>> Well, okay. So, this happens all the
12:50
time. So, insurance companies uh will
12:53
bring in a doctor to testify
12:56
um that the crash didn't cause whatever,
12:59
you know, the injury is.
13:01
And so, there's multiple ways to attack
13:05
that um even though you're not a doctor.
13:08
And so, the first thing is just
13:10
explaining what the relationship is, you
13:12
know, like, "Doctor, um you agree that
13:14
this is not your patient, you know?"
13:16
Yes. So, you don't have, you know, a
13:18
doctor-patient
13:20
relationship with this person. True?
13:22
Yes. So, you know, and and you kind of
13:25
explain why they're really there. And of
13:28
course, that's money. So, you pull up,
13:30
you know, well, how much money do you
13:31
make off of these kinds of cases? And
13:33
it's a lot of money always. And then you
13:35
explain, well, on what percentage of
13:37
your cases do you testify for the
13:40
insurance company? And it's like 90% of
13:43
the time. So, you're like, okay, let me
13:45
okay, let me get this straight. So,
13:47
you're not having to
13:49
have, you know, a doctor-patient
13:52
relationship. You make
13:55
$500,000 a year and 90% of the time
13:59
um you're on the side of the insurance
14:01
company and they're always coming back
14:03
to you more and more.
14:05
You know, sir, is that because you'll
14:07
say whatever they pay you to say? And of
14:10
course, oh, I don't know, but everyone
14:11
gets it. Everyone knows this person is
14:13
there for a reason.
14:15
And then,
14:16
um believe it or not, you know, even
14:18
though
14:19
they know more than you about how to
14:21
practice medicine,
14:23
you can still cross them on all kinds of
14:26
like, trust me. If you if you really get
14:28
into it
14:30
and if you prepare where
14:33
before the deposition,
14:36
you have an idea of what they're going
14:37
to say.
14:38
You know, it's it's not like they're
14:39
coming up with things that you didn't
14:41
expect, you know.
14:43
So, if if you have an idea of what
14:45
they're going to say, like, you know,
14:46
the surgery wasn't, you know, the right
14:49
one or whatever,
14:50
you go to
14:52
your doctor and ask them about, look, I
14:54
I think this is what they're going to
14:55
say. What's what's the truth, you know?
14:57
So, you you you get all of that first,
15:00
okay? And then, what you can do
15:03
is
15:04
do your homework.
15:06
And you can find
15:08
case other cases
15:10
where they've been in the courtroom. And
15:12
you can order
15:14
what they said, okay? So, you might ask
15:17
them some question about some kind of
15:19
medical procedure or something like that
15:21
where they answered it one way before,
15:24
but now that it's relevant in this case
15:26
where they're getting paid money, they
15:28
say it a different way, then that's
15:31
called impeachment. Um so, you can
15:32
impeach the crap out of people doing
15:34
that. Um but, you have to do your
15:35
homework.
15:37
Um but, what you do um and and the
15:40
proper way to impeach people like that
15:42
is you
15:44
go get the transcripts, obviously.
15:46
Um you create
15:48
a folder with all of them in it, and
15:51
then you have uh a summary.
15:53
And in the summary, you you have the
15:56
questions and citations to the page and
16:00
line every time that they answered it a
16:02
different way. So, that whenever you're
16:05
questioning them,
16:06
and they say it in even a slightly
16:08
different way, you can say, "Well,
16:10
that's
16:11
interesting. Do you remember you were
16:13
hired on the Smith versus
16:16
Jones case? In in in that case, you
16:18
answered the question in a completely
16:20
different way." And they're like, "No, I
16:22
don't remember that." Okay, well, um
16:24
would
16:25
refresh your recollection if I show you
16:26
that?" Yes. So, then you put that
16:29
um onto the overhead. You can't just say
16:31
it. You got to like show them the words
16:34
on, you know, the overhead, you know,
16:36
and then you read it and you say, "Is
16:37
this what you said before?"
16:39
And they say, "Yes." Now, they've been
16:41
impeached on things that supposedly
16:44
they're an expert and smarter than you
16:46
about, but because they're not credible,
16:48
it doesn't matter anymore.
16:50
>> So, what's the best cross-examination
16:52
you've ever personally conducted?
16:55
>> Oh, gosh. The best cross-examination
16:58
I've ever conducted, I had a a a case,
17:02
it was a car wreck case, and um the
17:04
defendant driver was a CEO of a large
17:07
corporation. Um very wealthy guy um and
17:11
very arrogant. And my client was a uh
17:15
high school student. They were not very
17:17
well off.
17:19
So, what their strategy was for college
17:21
was for this kid to get a scholarship
17:23
for playing
17:25
tennis. So, in in this crash, he breaks
17:28
his wrist.
17:29
So, it's kind of a big deal. So, what
17:31
happened was that the kid's mom
17:34
actually finds where this crash
17:36
happened, and there is a sushi
17:39
restaurant right outside. It's on West
17:41
Alabama and like
17:43
close to Shepherd. Um AKA Sushi is
17:48
actually the place people might know.
17:50
She goes there and she gets a video, and
17:52
it shows how the crash happened, okay?
17:55
And
17:57
it shows that the CEO clearly at fault,
18:01
probably drunk, like really at fault.
18:04
And so,
18:05
they're represented by an attorney that
18:07
doesn't really pay attention to
18:09
what's being produced, okay? So, in in
18:12
every case, you you have to produce
18:15
everything, including if you get a video
18:17
like that, okay?
18:18
But, it doesn't mean, you know, but you
18:20
don't have to make things easy for them.
18:22
So, if you're producing things,
18:25
including a video that's like a smoking
18:27
gun, in my opinion, you don't have to
18:29
put like an arrow saying, "This is the
18:31
smoking gun, you know, where I'm going
18:33
to
18:34
you know,
18:35
where I'm going to play this and it's
18:36
going to ruin your case."
18:38
Um because then they can prepare for it,
18:40
right?
18:41
You would rather them
18:43
not see that, okay? So, I think like a
18:46
lot of people, if they get a video that
18:48
kills
18:49
the other side's case, what they'll do
18:51
is they'll send it to opposing counsel
18:53
and be like, "Oh, your case is dead."
18:55
No, no, no, don't. That's not the way to
18:56
handle it. The way that you handle it is
18:58
that you produce it
19:00
very hush-hush and hope they never see
19:02
it.
19:03
Because if they never see it, then you
19:05
can take the deposition of the person,
19:08
and hopefully they will lie.
19:10
And if they lie like this guy did, he
19:13
goes on lying and I walk him through
19:16
this thing for like an hour. And I've
19:18
got him
19:19
20 lies.
19:21
And then I'm like, "Sir, I'm I'm really
19:23
confused because I've got a video."
19:27
He's like, "What video?"
19:29
And that's when I knew, you know. And
19:31
then he looks over at
19:33
his attorney and he's like, "Do you you
19:35
have a video?" And and his attorney is
19:37
like blushing because, you know, he's
19:40
like, "Oh, I didn't look at my
19:41
file." You know, I don't you know, he's
19:43
like, "Oh, yeah."
19:44
Yeah, you know, something like that.
19:46
But we go on break, you know, cuz
19:48
they're kind of like, "Well, I have to
19:49
go on break." And um over the break um
19:53
we let them look at the video.
19:55
And then we come back on the record.
19:58
And you can imagine if you're a person
20:00
viewing this,
20:01
you see this guy very confidently
20:03
answering questions brashly.
20:06
And then I say I have this video. And
20:08
then they're like, "What video?" And
20:09
then there's a break and then he comes
20:10
back and his hair's all messed up. He's
20:12
already He's already like, you know,
20:15
completely messed up. And I play the
20:17
video.
20:18
And I'm like, "Sir,
20:20
you know,
20:21
you were lying, weren't you?"
20:23
"Well, I just didn't
20:26
remember it correctly." And like, "Sir,
20:28
you're a CEO of a corporation. You you
20:30
you know, you didn't forget what
20:31
happened, you know. You didn't realize
20:33
that we had a video. That's what
20:35
happened. True? You know, um and they
20:38
were begging to settle that case after
20:40
that. Um
20:42
of course we wanted a whole bunch of
20:43
money. So, um it didn't
20:45
settle right away. But eventually um it
20:48
settled for premium dollars.
20:50
>> Well, we're going to switch it up again.
20:52
So, we're going to go to demonstration.
20:55
How do you handle a hostile witness?
20:57
>> Ah, so handling the hostile witness.
20:59
Guys, we've seen so many videos where
21:02
attorneys um are questioning a witness
21:05
and the witness is hostile. And then
21:07
what you see is you see the attorney
21:09
also act hostile. So then basically
21:12
there's two people arguing on a video
21:15
and the attorney thinks that they're
21:17
proving some point. The witness thinks
21:19
that they're doing some old school, you
21:21
know, arguing that's awesome. But in
21:25
reality, it's not persuasive to to
21:28
anybody. So do not handle it like that.
21:31
If you have a hostile witness,
21:34
90% of the time what you need to do is
21:37
you need to be what I call Columbo where
21:40
you let them be hostile
21:43
and
21:44
you almost
21:45
not act confused, but you you're like,
21:47
"Huh, okay, you know." And and you let
21:50
them
21:51
Basically, what you're doing is is
21:52
you're trying to get them to irritate
21:55
the jury, okay? You're trying to just
21:57
like almost act like you don't realize
22:00
they're being hostile so that the jury
22:02
starts to realize how hostile this MFer
22:05
is before you do.
22:07
And if the jury starts to realize how
22:09
bad that they are before you do, then
22:11
they start to root for you and that's
22:13
what you want. You want to get the jury
22:15
on your side. So what you do is you let
22:19
them figure it out first. Let them get
22:22
angry first and then you can say, "Well,
22:25
you know, I'm confused with what you
22:27
just said." And then you can impeach
22:29
them.
22:30
But nine times out of 10, if you try to
22:32
be, you know, if you try to out
22:36
jerk them or, you know, whatever, it
22:39
backfires.
22:40
>> Got it. And so what if they don't stop
22:43
and they just keep going on and
22:45
>> If if the person continues to be
22:46
hostile, you're like, "Thank you."
22:48
Because the worst thing that you can do
22:50
in a courtroom is be an unlikable
22:52
witness, okay? So if the attorney is not
22:56
being unlikable and they're asking
22:59
questions that are
23:01
um relevant, then that's fair game. If
23:04
the person continues to be hostile, what
23:07
it does is it just creates more and more
23:10
credibility issues for that witness,
23:12
where of course, everyone starts to root
23:15
for you.
23:16
>> So, let's talk witness. The witness, he
23:18
changes everything. Your client says the
23:21
other driver ran the red light. The
23:23
other driver says your client ran it. No
23:25
cameras, then you find someone who says,
23:27
"I saw the whole thing." How much can
23:29
that one person change the case?
23:31
>> Well,
23:32
so having a witness is very important in
23:37
a case, but remember,
23:39
the witness has to have no dog in the
23:41
fight. So,
23:43
if it's a witness that has some
23:46
potential incentive to lie,
23:48
then
23:50
reasonably good attorney could
23:51
cross-examine them and bring out that
23:54
they might have sort of like a
23:56
motivation to lie.
23:58
And it depends on how the witness
24:01
handles that. If the witness handles
24:03
that with, "Oh, you sure?" You know,
24:05
then people might not like them on top
24:08
of that, and they might think that
24:09
they're actually freaking lying.
24:11
So,
24:13
it's very important to have a witness,
24:15
but it's like really more important to
24:17
have a good witness.
24:19
>> So, let's make it a little harder. The
24:21
witness has a felony conviction. Still
24:23
using them?
24:25
>> Yeah, I mean, so just because a person
24:27
has a felony doesn't mean that they're
24:29
not, you know, a potentially a good
24:31
witness. It depends on what they're a
24:33
witness for. I mean, if they have
24:36
Let's say that they have a felony for
24:38
theft, and your case
24:41
in some way,
24:42
you know,
24:44
involves
24:46
something about someone not telling the
24:48
truth, and this person's supposed to be
24:50
a witness about who told the truth, but
24:52
they themselves are kind of known as not
24:55
a truth-sayer, then that could be a
24:56
problem. Um but if it's, you know, other
24:58
kinds of felonies,
25:00
probably wouldn't matter as much.
25:02
>> How much inconsistency is normal in a
25:04
situation like that?
25:06
>> Okay, so it is
25:08
normal for people to be inconsistent
25:11
with the recollection of what happened.
25:14
Um so, you know, and even if if you ask
25:17
me a question right now and then ask me
25:19
in 10 minutes, I'm not going to answer
25:20
it the same way.
25:22
That doesn't mean that I'm lying. It It
25:23
just means that, you know, my thoughts
25:25
are like slightly different now than
25:27
they were, you know, like a few minutes
25:28
ago.
25:30
Yeah, you know, it's kind of
25:32
nerve-wracking to be here. Um
25:34
not really, but um
25:35
so,
25:36
um inconsistencies happen. Now, this is
25:40
the thing though.
25:41
Um in cases, um if you detect a pattern,
25:45
if you So, you know, there could be
25:48
inconsistencies,
25:49
but then if you detect a pattern where
25:51
they always tend to fix prior
25:54
um bad parts of their case, that's when
25:56
you start to smell something, and that's
25:58
called You
26:00
You smell So, you can start to
26:02
point that out, you know, like every
26:04
time that you fix, you know, your answer
26:07
always seems to be in your benefit. And,
26:10
you know, also, you agreed the first
26:12
time that you said that, which was in
26:14
your deposition, which was 1 year ago.
26:17
That was
26:19
closer to the time of the accident,
26:20
right? Yeah. So, you agree with me that
26:23
your memory about what happened at the
26:25
time of the accident would have been
26:26
better when you said it previously.
26:28
True?
26:30
Well, I don't know about that. And then
26:31
you're like, "Okay.
26:32
Okay, you're Okay, so you're saying that
26:34
your memory wouldn't have been better,
26:36
you know, closer to the accident than
26:39
now, years later."
26:43
Then you got them.
26:43
>> So, what makes you personally believe a
26:46
witness, or what makes a jury believe
26:48
someone someone?
26:49
>> So,
26:51
whether I believe a witness
26:53
or not is not as important, but what a
26:55
jury thinks. Okay? And let's just, you
26:57
know, tell it how it is.
26:59
A lot of times, um, juries make their
27:02
decisions based upon how a person makes
27:05
them feel.
27:07
There's
27:08
also something called confirmation bias,
27:11
which is people already sort of have an
27:13
opinion of how things happen, and it's
27:15
usually formed, um, based upon how the
27:17
person makes them feel or if they, you
27:20
know, encountered that kind of a
27:22
situation previously. And they've
27:24
already got it all figured out through
27:25
their their little
27:27
shortcuts. That's usually how they
27:29
figure out, um, who is telling the truth
27:32
and who is not. It's based upon
27:34
confirmation bias.
27:36
Which, of course, poses a problem
27:38
because,
27:39
um, if if you have a case that is a car
27:41
wreck, let's say, a lot of times people
27:43
have a bias against car accident cases.
27:47
So, a lot of times confirmation bias
27:50
works against you as a plaintiff's
27:53
lawyer. They they automatically think
27:55
the person suing someone
27:57
is lying because that's what they've
27:59
heard about these kind of cases.
28:01
So, what you have to do in those cases
28:04
is
28:05
you have to keep in mind confirmation
28:08
bias is powerful. And so, in those
28:11
cases,
28:12
you have to change the frame of your
28:14
case from the frame of that, you know,
28:17
whatever it is that causes that
28:20
confirmation bias to a different frame
28:24
that has a different confirmation bias.
28:25
Well, this is a case actually about an
28:27
insurance company not doing what they're
28:28
supposed to do.
28:29
And they're like, "Oh, yeah, I know that
28:31
situation." So, then what you do is you
28:33
take control of the confirmation bias
28:36
before the other side does. So, in some
28:39
cases, trials are really a contest of
28:43
who is the first person to set in the
28:47
frame of what happened so that the
28:50
confirmation bias then works in their
28:52
favor.
28:53
>> Have you ever watched a witness lose the
28:55
jury in real time?
28:57
>> Yes, I have uh
28:59
definitely watched plenty of witnesses
29:02
lose the jury in real time um
29:05
on cross-examination and it's beautiful.
29:08
Sometimes you'll have people be rude to
29:11
you. Sometimes they will lie. They'll be
29:13
evasive to the point of just exhausting
29:16
the jury. You can tell
29:18
um or even sometimes
29:21
you know, they'll be saying things and
29:24
and they're not real confident about
29:25
what they're saying and maybe it's like
29:27
uh
29:28
employee of a company and they're not
29:31
confident, but they're saying everything
29:32
perfectly.
29:33
And you'll say, you know, it's very
29:35
important for you to answer these
29:37
questions a certain way right now. You
29:38
know, well, yeah, yes or no.
29:40
And that and that's your boss sitting
29:42
right over there, isn't it, sir?
29:45
Yeah, that's my And and you know,
29:47
everyone can tell what just happened.
29:49
You know, he's saying this because
29:50
that's his boss.
29:52
And they they can understand that
29:54
situation. Everyone understands that.
29:57
Confirmation bias kind of shifts a
29:58
little bit like, ah, I understand this
30:00
now. This is a guy towing the company
30:03
line.
30:04
>> Well, switch it up again. So, the
30:06
million-dollar injury with 30,000 of
30:09
insurance. Your client is
30:11
catastrophically injured. They can't
30:13
work. They may need medical care for the
30:15
rest of their life. The person who
30:17
caused it has 30,000 in insurance. What
30:20
do you tell their family?
30:22
>> So,
30:23
if you're in a car accident, um one of
30:26
the things that's important to look at
30:28
up front is how much car insurance is
30:30
is available. That's very important. And
30:34
um if you're in a situation where
30:36
there's not enough insurance to cover
30:38
everything.
30:39
Um the first thing that you ask is if
30:42
your client has underinsured motorist
30:45
coverage. So, underinsured motorist
30:47
coverage is basically a coverage that
30:49
people can carry that would cover
30:51
someone else. Okay? So, it's not like if
30:53
you're in a crash and you use it, you're
30:55
putting it on your insurance. Don't be
30:57
one of those people, you know, I I don't
30:58
want to put it on my insurance. You're
31:00
not putting it on your insurance. You
31:01
you paid for coverage that covers
31:04
someone else. You paid premiums for this
31:08
situation. Well, I don't want to use it
31:09
cuz it could cause my premiums to go up.
31:12
I've
31:13
never seen that. I've I've been doing
31:15
this for 20 years. But, also,
31:19
if you're scared of that, you can fix it
31:21
real easy. What you do is you use it
31:25
and then you go get other insurance. You
31:27
go shop your insurance. And guess what
31:29
happens? Every single time that you shop
31:31
your insurance, you pay less because
31:34
they cuz, you know, they all want to get
31:36
your business. So, if you're in a crash
31:39
and you're getting all worried about,
31:40
you know, should I use my underinsured
31:42
motorist coverage, which is what you
31:43
paid for, because it might cause my
31:45
premium to go up by 20 bucks a month,
31:49
then just use it, get all of that money,
31:52
which is far more than 20 bucks a month,
31:55
and then go shop your coverage and pay
31:57
less.
31:59
>> So, we are coming to an end on this
32:01
episode and we are going to end with
32:03
rapid fire questions.
32:04
>> Yeah.
32:05
>> So, this is an answer immediately. So,
32:08
direct or cross?
32:10
>> Okay, direct because that's how you win
32:12
your case. Cross might be more fun, but
32:14
when you have a direct
32:16
that works, it's beautiful.
32:18
>> Okay, angry juror or bored juror?
32:22
>> Angry juror.
32:23
>> Logic or emotion?
32:25
>> Oof, that's tough. Oh,
32:28
depends on the case.
32:29
Um, usually emotion.
32:32
>> Settlement or verdict?
32:33
>> Verdict.
32:34
>> 5 million guaranteed or a 50/50 shot at
32:37
15 million?
32:40
>> Depends on the I mean I mean now look,
32:42
I'm not going to get people
32:43
uh blanket advice here that might cost
32:46
them millions of dollars. It depends on
32:48
your case. Every case is different. We
32:50
like to try cases. Um if it's a really
32:52
good case and they're making you a $5
32:54
million offer, but we think it's worth
32:56
10 million and we think we can get maybe
32:58
15 million um
32:59
through a verdict, then try the case.
33:02
>> Harder to cross Harder to cross-examine
33:05
liar or expert?
33:07
>> Expert.
33:08
>> Can you tell during trial whether you're
33:10
winning?
33:11
>> Yes.
33:12
>> Have you ever been genuinely scared
33:13
before a verdict?
33:15
>> Every single time.
33:16
>> What's the biggest mistake young trial
33:18
lawyers make?
33:19
>> The biggest mistake young trial lawyers
33:21
make is they do not prepare enough.
33:24
>> What's one courtroom skill you can you
33:25
can't teach?
33:27
>> One courtroom skill you cannot teach is
33:29
picking a jury and like being likable
33:33
quickly.
33:34
>> What's one thing
33:36
juries understand better than lawyers
33:38
think they do?
33:40
>> Mhm.
33:41
That's a tough question. Um
33:44
juries understand
33:46
Ask me again so I can
33:47
>> What's one thing juries understand
33:49
better than lawyers think they do?
33:51
>> When people are hiding the truth. People
33:54
like attorneys think, "Oh, they're not
33:55
getting it." And then they just repeat
33:57
it over and over and over again. And
33:58
it's so boring. Trust me, they they got
34:01
it a long time ago.
34:02
>> Final question. You've spent your career
34:04
trying to persuade 12 straight Let me
34:06
start over. You spent your career trying
34:08
to persuade 12 strangers who don't know
34:10
you, don't know your client, and don't
34:13
have to agree with you. What are the
34:15
three most important things you've
34:16
learned about persuading another human
34:18
being? I think that's two questions, but
34:20
it's
34:21
>> Well, okay. So, the first thing is that
34:23
it's a popularity contest. So, you know,
34:26
you you have to be likable. If If you're
34:28
trying to persuade people and and don't
34:30
like you, um that's really difficult.
34:33
Um, also, uh,
34:35
you try to, um, you know, frame, um,
34:39
arguments in a way that people will
34:42
understand the argument. They'll they'll
34:44
they'll already understand what what the
34:46
end of of the story is before you even
34:49
say the end of the story because you
34:51
framed it perfectly.
34:53
>> Well, that was the final question.
34:55
>> Okay, well, thank you so much for, uh,
34:57
asking me these questions.
34:58
>> Cross-examining?
34:59
>> Yeah, it's sort of like you
35:00
cross-examined me. That's right.
35:02
And that's a wrap on the Brian White
35:04
Podcast. Listen, um, I'm not sure if I'm
35:07
doing a good job, but I'm trying my best
35:09
to give the correct information. I've
35:10
been doing this for over 20 years. I'm
35:13
board certified in personal injury trial
35:16
law. Only about 5% of attorneys in the
35:19
state of Texas are board certified. Um,
35:22
I, um, hope to share with people a
35:24
little bit of insight on what has helped
35:27
me to do well. Um, last year I recovered
35:30
covered over a hundred million dollars.
35:32
So, I hope that people enjoy my podcast
35:34
and also, um, obtain some useful
35:36
information.
35:37
So, if you're in an accident, you can
35:39
give me a call. Attorney Brian White.
35:41
Remember, get Brian.
35:43
>> Thanks for tuning in to the Brian White
35:44
Podcast. [music]
35:46
Don't forget to like, share, and
35:47
subscribe, and hit that notification
35:49
button so you don't miss an episode.