Arguing Witness Credibility at Closing After People v. AdamsBy Jill AusdenmooreFebruary 2013Article, Page 92In Adams, the Illinois Supreme Court reemphasized that prosecutors' commentary on witness credibility at closing must be based on the evidence.
Lawyers, Doctors and Matryoshka DollsBy Hon. Ron SpearsFebruary 2012Column, Page 106Fee contests over physician testimony reflect the tension between lawyers and doctors.
Exposing Immigration Bias During Voir DireBy David Holland and Gil LenzFebruary 2011Article, Page 82Courts should allow questioning of prospective jurors on immigration-related bias, the authors say. They also suggest questions that can expose immigrant bias during jury selection.
Experts Cannot Testify About the Law - or Can They?By James W. SpringerFebruary 2010Article, Page 98In theory, experts may not opine about whether a party's actions were legal. Here's how courts have put that principle into practice.
Loose lips lose lawsuitsBy Helen W. GunnarssonNovember 2009Lawpulse, Page 546Having trouble getting your witnesses to shut up? Show them a copy of People v Harris.
The Overlooked Art of Redirect ExaminationBy Jeffrey J. Kroll and Patrick WhiteAugust 2009Article, Page 406Redirect examination is a powerful weapon for litigators, but it can backfire on those who forget its central purpose - to rehabilitate witnesses.
Making evidence meaningfulBy Helen W. GunnarssonJune 2009Lawpulse, Page 278A veteran lawyer and trial judge tells litigators how to present evidence in a way that engages and wins over jurors.
Cross-Examination of Experts: Saving the Best for TrialBy Keith L. DavidsonFebruary 2009Article, Page 94A veteran litigator warns against revealing so much during discovery that you limit your ability to effectively cross-examine experts at trial.
Fees for Physician Testimony: What's Reasonable?By Timothy J. HarrisSeptember 2008Article, Page 460A look at the governing rules, along with common-sense ways lawyers can keep doctors from charging too much for testifying.
Eyewitnesses and the Rashomon EffectBy Hon. Ron SpearsAugust 2008Column, Page 424Research indicates that eyewitness testimony is less reliable than people think.
Diogenes and the Testimonial WhopperBy Hon. Ron SpearsFebruary 2008Column, Page 104What can we do to improve the accuracy and honesty of witness testimony? Not enough.
An Update on Rule 213 Trial Witness DisclosureBy Daniel P. WurlSeptember 2007Article, Page 464A look at the evolution of the Rule 213 opinion-witness rule and the supreme and appellate court decisions interpreting it.
Cross-Examination: Beyond the Perry Mason MomentBy Helen W. GunnarssonDecember 2006Article, Page 654Though you shouldn't count on a surprise case-winning confession, there's a lot you can do to improve your performance on cross.
Lack of professional license not a bar to rendering expert opinionAugust 2006Illinois Law Update, Page 404On June 2, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, reversing and remanding the decision of the Circuit Court of Lake County to strike the affidavit of an expert witness because the witness lacked an Illinois professional license.
The New Illinois Standard for Admissibility of Expert Opinion TestimonyBy Justin Lee HeatherFebruary 2006Article, Page 88The court in Simons created a dual standard: de novo review of the Frye "general acceptance" test, more deferential treatment of the trial court's decision about relevance and experts' qualifications.
Locating Elusive Witnesses: An IntroductionBy Peggy Shapiro and Perry MyersJuly 2003Article, Page 357Simple, low- or no-cost tools for finding witnesses who don't want to be found.
Adverse Examination of Former Employees in IllinoisBy Jeffrey K. Kroll and J. Ryan PottsJune 2003Article, Page 300Illinois plaintiffs should be allowed to treat former employees of corporate defendants as adverse witnesses, these authors argue.
The Art of Direct ExaminationBy Terrence J. LavinJune 2003Article, Page 305A trial lawyer's guide to effectively examining experts and plaintiffs.