This video explains the civil litigation process, emphasizing that settlements are often preferred over trials due to lower costs, time savings, and reduced risk of appeals. The program covers key trial stages including jury selection, opening statements, witness testimony, cross-examination, and summations. It highlights the importance of credibility, the role of expert witnesses, and how both plaintiffs and defendants present their cases. The video also addresses practical considerations like witness compensation, prior medical records, and the difference between lay and expert witnesses.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
NAN Legal Night | May 28, 2026Added:
Okay, good evening everyone.
>> Thank you for joining us for um our legal night this month for the month of May. Give yourselves a round of applause for being here this evening.
You those that are also Yes. Thank you to also those that are online um that we will hear from momentarily. This is first of all this is National Action Network for those that are new. This is National Action Network founded by our president Dr. Al Sharpton. Um and thank you for joining us here at the Harlem Commonwealth Council building. Um this will be our last legal night in this building. Um, and we are excited about that. Not because we are leaving this beautiful space, but because we are leaving this beautiful space to go into our permanent location, um, which is that not that far from here, uh, which we should be moving in very shortly. Um, and so we are glad about that. And so our next movie night, um, hopefully we'll be in there. So those that can join us, we hope that you will join us.
Um, and definitely stay alert for all of our events that are coming up and all of those things that are coming ahead.
Looking ahead before we get into um our league night, just want to give you guys some updates here at the House of Justice. Those that don't know who I am, I'm Christian Matthew. I serve as national youth and college president as well as our Harlem office manager. Um, and so we are here every day Monday through Friday 9 to 5. You can call the House of Justice 877-626-4651 if you have a crisis, if you have concerns, if you have anything of any nature. Um, and as we are moving, we will have a crisis center where we will be helping folks. And these are some of the attorneys that you will hear from um on this evening that also assist in those legal affairs. here. So, we're thankful to them um for taking their time because none of these attorneys that you will hear from today work for the National Action Network. But they are all um doing this in respect um to just not just their time, but the legacy of what Legal Night is. And for those that do not know what legal night is, this is a night that was founded by our late great attorney, Michael Hardy, who served as our executive vice president council.
And so this is not just called legal night, but this is the Michael Hardy legal night as we will always honor not just attorney's sacrifice um in his personal life, but the sacrifice that he gave today being the legal eagle of man and also the amount of accomplishments that he has made throughout this city, this state and this nation. Um and we are all dead to him for his great service. So can we give a hand to the memory of attorney Michael Hardy?
Every Monday night right here at 6:30 p.m. we have our nan youth will be.
Please stay alert to where our youth will be. I believe we will be here um this Monday. We might be but if we are not there will be an announcement Saturday and we'll also be posting a line on where our Monday huddle will be.
So, please stay alert for where our hand youth over every Monday night that was founded by Ashton Dominique Sharpton uh where our young people come. We speak on great ideas. Last Monday we were off because of Memorial Day, but we will be back this Monday, June 1st for our Monday night youth huddle. Our next legal date night, I'm just going to let you know now so that you don't have to call and ask no questions, but we'll remind you is June 25th.
>> June 25th, >> we will be have we have a legal night.
So stay hosted for that. Also, we are gearing up. If anybody has been listening, Reverend Sharpton has been talking about doing a March on Wall Street and so we are gearing up for that. So please stay alert for that. We have passed out the signup sheet this week. Uh we have excitedly passed it out to those that are here. It's also online to those that are watching online that would like to register for our March on Wall Street. The registration is up.
>> What What am I saying?
>> Wall Street.
>> Wall Street. I'm so sorry. Lord have mercy. March on Washington. Lord Jesus, you're sleepy. March on Washington.
March on Washington. We are going back to Washington. Thank you, Mr. Ernest, for saying that. Normally we um last year we went to Wall Street. This year we are going back to Washington um in commemoration of that. So please definitely keep your eyes focused as registration is already open online. So those that are online that are watching you can go to www.nactionetwork.net and listen and get more updates about that. Always remember to watch Politics Nation Monday and Saturday at 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time. We have always jokes about those that are in other areas. So, those that are watching, remember that it's Eastern time. So, if you on the West Coast, you're three hours behind. So, that would be 2:00.
I know how to do math. Um, but if you have any questions, you can always see myself, Bro, or any of the other staff members that year always by calling 877-6264651.
And to turn us over, I'm going to turn this over to Attorney Spelin, who will take us further in the program. Let's give him a hand at this time.
>> Thank you, Chris, and thank you uh our audience for coming out here tonight. Uh by a show of hands, how many people are here for the first time for Legal Light?
>> Okay, great. Uh but if you enjoy the program, we ask that you tell a friend and perhaps come back again. Um so for those of you that haven't been here before, those of you that uh do come from time to time, you know that legal night is a program which we started uh back in January of 2011. This is our 16th year that we're doing this and bringing the law into the community.
Legal night is done in three parts. The first part is that we usually have one or two attorneys teaming up uh to speak about a certain topic. The second part of legal night is a time when you can come up and ask questions, anything that's on your mind, either the questions uh geared towards what we discussed this evening or anything else for that matter. And then time permitting we try to uh see if we can um uh spend some time uh where the attorneys can mingle with you on a one-on-one basis because sometimes people have questions that they don't want to ask in front of everyone else.
So we try to save some time uh for that as well. Okay. Um that's essentially the structure of legal night. And you know, legal night could never be done really without the hard work of the uh National Action Network um support staff. And I want to give a special thanks to a number of people. I'm sure I'm going to forget some names, so you'll forgive me, but I want to thank Ashley Sharpton for everything that she's done throughout the years for Legal Night. And Lisa Goldie Harps. Goldie is out in the reception area. Thank her. Uh Brenda Don, uh Winston Gilchrist, uh the videographer, not here tonight, but usually here uh on a number of times. Uh Brenda Ricks, Chris Ricardelli, Arthur Robinson who's here. Arthur, thank you again for everything. Dominique uh Dominique Sht Tringer, Sister Diane Word, uh Chris Matthews, who you met before, and um uh another person we like to mention, her name, those of us that have been here for a while know Maxine Lewis, passed away maybe 10, 15 years ago, but she was so instrumental in Legal Night in the formation of it with the rest of the N support staff. I really want to give her a special thanks because she really gave so much for that that she really was missed and and appreciated. Um over the years various attorneys have gone on to the Edwards in in Brooklyn, Judge Mashel Sweeney uh in New York, Judge Kim Parker also in New York, Judge Tanya Kennedy in the appellet division. uh Judge Wilton Tingling, the jury clerk in New York County, as well as the clerk of the court in New York County, uh makes appearances from time to time. So, we really have talented and special people that have given a lot of time for Legal Night for this community. We really thank them all. Um bunch of attorneys, myself included. We we're not um employees of NAND, but we we do this because it's the right thing to do. Uh we want to be able to level the playing field and over the years many attorneys some of which are here tonight uh some are not here tonight but we can always count on and we want to thank uh for example Rob Benson who's here tonight.
Thank you Rob.
Uh Gary Certain is not here tonight uh but spent a lot of time over the years.
Jeff Embund Ken Gilbert Carmen Jack Gerardano Kan Love Links is here tonight. Thank you for all.
Michael Ross, Royce Russell, myself, Joel Schmel, and um Eric Sever is uh our corresponding council in Berkeley, California. He'll probably be here on on Zoom tonight and probably show his show up. uh WY Steel and of course um really the special attorney whose um we named after this legal life program, Michael Hardy that Chris had mentioned to uh a little while ago. Mike was a a um very famous and very talented civil rights attorney, well known all across the city, the state and the country and uh really was one of a kind, a great attorney, a great person. uh Mr. Ball and I always say this about him that all the attorneys that have ever worked over here and done work with National Action Network just knowing Mike we are all better lawyers just crossing paths with Mike and just being able to no client relationship that's established merely sitting over here and asking questions I mentioned that to you because of the fact that there are different relationships. The priest's penitence uh the um spousal relationship, a doctor patient relationship, attorney client where the relationship is sacrosan and really um confidential and um um we just don't have that over here. You're here just to ask questions and we're here to help and just to provide some guidance. Okay. So, the first part tonight of the program will be presented. Usually, we have two attorneys and myself and a colleague, friend of mine, Rob Bellson, how to obtain money down on accident cases. I have been trying cases for many years and also for many years and we learn certain things. We'd like to share that with you. Now, you may tell me, you may say, Joel or or Rob, you know, why do you want to tell us about litigation and the different stages and what to expect and how cases are tried? Shouldn't you really be having this conversation with uh maybe young attorneys or law school students? Right? Well, the reason why I wanted to talk and to share about trial techniques with non attorneys is because it goes back to something I remember hearing years ago. There used to be a men's clothing shop. I think they're out of business now. I'm not going to mention their names because they don't give free advertising, but their motto was that an educated consumer is our best customer. So when you think about that, I know if my clients know about what a lawsuit is all about, it's going to make things easier for me and more interesting for them to understand why, for example, things take as long as they do or why, for instance, uh a judge is ruling a certain way or why um an attorney for the other side, what is his angle? What does he want to accomplish in terms of representing his his client? It makes things go a lot simpler, a lot smoother, a lot easier.
So, we're going to be speaking again about trials in general. However, there are ways in which to obtain money damages without having a full-blown trial. And I'd like really to turn over the microphone now to Robert Doug and talk about some of those little, we'll call them litigation tools, how to obtain money without necessarily trying.
So, we're going to be talking about trials later on, but let's start talking about other alternatives at this point.
>> Thank you, Joel. Evening everyone.
>> Can everyone hear me without the microphone or uh I'll use the microphone. Good evening.
>> Uh first of all, this is a a special topic because uh between Mr. Schmin and myself, we probably have 60 years of actual trial experience.
That's rare. That's rare. So, We're going to be talking about trials in a few minutes, but um the goal in any lawsuit, any civil lawsuit, which is what we do, is to recover money. That's the only remedy available under the law.
That's all they can do. Can't turn back the clock, no apologies or anything like that. It's it's how we keep score in society through money and money damages.
But before we get to trial, think of it like a timeline. There are all these different things that can happen. Um there is a settlement obviously that's when both parties come together and say hey can we work this out and and that's usually done between the lawyers or um and then there's arbitration and mediation. Anyone know the difference between arbitration and mediation?
Anyone hear those terms?
Arbitration is basically a little mini trial where the arbitrator acts as the judge and both sides give their their case or their presentation and the arbitrator makes a decision and the decision is usually binding. It usually is final. There's very limited appeals in arbitration. So that's one way to do it. Another way to do it is mediation.
Anyone know what mediation is?
Okay. So, that's basically um the same format as an arbitration.
Both sides kind of give their pitch and there's a mediator who's usually a retired judge or um maybe a hearing officer or a lawyer. And the mediator tries to bring both sides together.
Says, "No, you're offering, you know, 100,000 and your demand is 200,000.
Maybe there's a number in the middle. We can meet at >> million and a half.
>> I like that. Who said that? My man.
That's what I like. That's what I'm talking about. Uh but the mediator can only make suggestions. The mediator tries to bring the parties together and get them to resolve their dispute um through the mediation process. And it works. It works quite a bit. Um but if it doesn't work and if arbitration is not the and if settlement hasn't worked u then the next step is trial right and that's the next um that's the next step but if we can't um we always try and settle every case and why do we do that um I know for me I try and settle every case because I want to make law I want to make money for my client. And by making law, I mean sometimes you win a case, you lose a case, but there's an appeal and the appellet court weighs in. And there's other there are things that happen in appeals. I don't like to do that. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of money. And we represent people. I represent a real person, not a company, not an insurance company. I represent a a person who I'm trying to get a resolution for because they could usually use the money, use the money to educate their children, to feed their families, to make them whole, which is really the whole idea behind the civil justice system, to make someone whole.
So that's what I try and do if I can. I can get a good settlement, that's what I do. And um I guess Joel will speak for a few minutes about the importance of settlements and and how that factories into what we do here. And then after that we'll talk a little bit about a a factual scenario, a trial that we're going to talk about and uh and try and serve you. And I think if it's okay with you, Joel, we're going to designate Mr. Robinson as a judge of the uh of the proceedings. So, your honor, any rulings are going to be directed to you and uh be kind if you take this.
>> Agree.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh Rob, so I just want to add a few other things to what Rob mentioned to you. Um why it's important to resolve cases really before trials.
uh because of the fact that listen, >> you're going to have a trial, very expensive over the years. I will tell you this that you have a simple accident case, two car collision, nothing worth sharing. the fact that one car has a green light, one car has a red light, each person claims that the other person is to blame.
You know, to to make out a case, not only do you bring medical records in, but you got to bring doctors with and doctors are not cheap. An orthopedist is going to charge between $7,500 and $10,000 for a half a day just to come to court to tell you to brag about his qualifications and about his interpretation of the records and that the client did have an accident and it was causally related to the injuries which he sustained and were on the other side didn't. The doctors are getting a ton of money and guess what that's coming out of your settlement. the attorney's not paying that. The attorney might front the cost, but afterwards your case is being reduced by that. You may have a situation where it's complicated with respect to how the accident happened.
So, we have to bring in an engineer, a an expert to testify in terms of we call coefficient of friction. For example, that the roadway was very very slick and slippery couldn't prevent car from stopping the time. Somebody may, and those guys are exertive, too. Someone may be working and have a decent job and decent benefits and going to be out of work for quite some time. An economist is going to have to come in and testify in terms of your base pay, what you could expect in terms of increases, cost of living increases, pension rates, and things of that nature. These guys are not cheap. It comes off of your case.
Now, I'm not saying that you don't spend the money because yes, you have to. But these are factors to consider. And not only that, after it's all said and done and you have the trial, someone's going to be happy and someone's not going to be happy. And the person's not going to be happy is going to appeal it be delayed another several years to the so these are reasons why for the right price, and I say for the right price, cases should be settled. Again, not to settle just because you're gunshy or because your attorney doesn't want to try case, but because all the factors weigh, it's in your best interest. The judge are happy when those things happen because it's let's face it the judge doesn't have to worry about making certain rules which may uh be reviewed later on and um could be uh reversed.
The judge likes to be reversed.
Sometimes it takes very very long period of time to come up with various rules.
Settlement prevents that. Uh court personnel are happy. You know, it's very difficult to maintain order in the courts and organize the structure of a trial.
The jury clerks are happy when these things are settled. So, a settling is the right thing for the right price. As I said, one of the first times I settled a case in court about 40 some odd years ago, the judge told me it was a good settlement and I didn't think so. I was representing the plaintiff. I didn't think so. The judge says, "You know why it's a good settlement?" And I said, "Why?" And he says, "Because you're annoyed and your adversary is annoyed."
And that means if you think you took too little and he thinks he paid too much, you're both annoyed, that's a fair settlement. And that's basically really really what happens. All right, we're going to talk again about a trial right now and the details, the stages, but before that, to make things easier, to speed things up, I want to pass the mic over to Rob, and he's going to give you a fact pattern. And basically law school believes that get what we call hypothetical. You hear certain things and based upon that you keep that in mind and you uh discuss a case in relation to that. So Rob will tell you a little about a case and you'll keep that in mind and then we'll talk to you about how that plays out in court and what we did. Okay.
>> Thanks.
>> I don't think we mentioned it but uh to Mr. left is attorney Peter Gleason who is also a top lawyer and a member of the legal night team and thank him for being here.
Those of you who didn't have a chance to meet Mr. party.
>> What a what a wonderful wonderful lawyer and advocate and and uh we all stand on his shoulders and part of the reason I'm here and we're all here is to honor his legacy and the work he did uh with the rev for 30 40 years. Meaningful stuff.
Okay. So, uh we have a a real life factual scenario here. My client, we'll call her Maria, lives in in a multi- apartment complex in the Bronx.
And on July 10th of 2019, she's up early and she's going to work uh at the school that she works at where she coordinates food and meals for children.
She leaves her apartment about 7:45 in the morning. She walks out the door down the steps in the complex and it rained the night before >> and there's a condition that happens when it rains. When it rains hard, there's a garden that gets wet and then the water and the mud spill out from the garden onto the walkway. And as she's walking on this walkway, the ground is wet and there's mud and she slips and she falls and she breaks her elbow. She has a fractured elbow.
She has a fractured foot and a fractured finger and she sues the sues the owner of the apartment for negligence. Says, "I think you were negligent. you have a obligation to maintain this build the the grounds in a reasonably safe condition and that you didn't do that. You knew about this the groundskeeper testified at the deposition. They knew about this problem, this recurring condition and instead of fixing it, they'd sweep it away. They they'd clean it up after it rained a lot. And if you just happen to get caught out there before they cleaned it up, well, you're on your own. And so we bring a lawsuit for negligence and we want to recover damages for uh her injuries for Maria's injuries. And uh we go through discovery and uh there's an exchange of Does everyone know what discovery is?
>> No. Okay, good. Some sophistic you're New Yorkers, so you guys are all sophisticated. We exchange medical records over the years. We give them authorizations to get records. We do positions. We ask questions under oath of my client, the plaintiff, Maria, of the defendant's witnesses, the groundskeeper and witness. And uh we get to the point where we're either going to settle the case or we're going to try the case. And that's what we that's what we're that's the scenario that Mr. Schmin and I are going to go through right now. Um Joel is going to be the defense lawyer. I'm going to be the plaintiff's lawyer. The person who's bringing the lawsuit, defend the person who's defending against the lawsuit.
We're going to have a mini trial here where we kind of go back and forth and, you know, mention the issues that are important to us and how we're going to prove our case and what we're going to do if we have trial and uh if we need judor's rulings, we're going to ask Arthur to step up and uh be our judge here.
>> All right. Anything out from the uh the trial? Um, I guess what first is jury selection. So, so we've reached the point we reached the point where we've litigated this. We can't agree. We can't settle this case. So, the judge tells us go pick a jury and then we start the trial. So, in jury selection, I'm the plaintiff. I represent the person who's bringing the lawsuit. As a result, I have the burden of proving the issu the the the issues, proving the allegations, and I go first. I go first. That's a big deal because um as I'm sure you know from your life experience, when you get the chance to frame the issue yourself and and you say what the facts are, a little bit of an advantage there called privacy. You hear it first and you don't overpromise. So, in jury selection, talk to 20 or 30 jurors. I'm going to have a questionnaire that's going to have your background information. And my job is to learn a lot in a hurry. I want to learn as much as I can about you to know if you're going to be a good juror for me. And a good juror for me is what I'm looking for. I want jurors who have some humanity, who have some empathy, who can understand what it's like in my to be in my client's position, woman of a certain age. She's not an accidentrone person and this accident happened and I would give a brief recitation in jury selection. I say this is what happened on this day. We claim that it was a result of the defendant's negative.
maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. And I'm looking for jurors who can judge the facts fairly, follow the law, and if I prove the case can award money to evidence, working together with the other jurors, and we're going to select six jurors and two alternate jurors. We're going to work together and listen to everything we say. listen to both sides and give us both a fair shake.
And uh there's an art to jury selection.
I try not to oversell my case. I I try and be evenhanded. I try and be courteous to my opponent because that's the right way to do it.
Um and I try not to um go too far into the facts because jury selection is not the time to try the case. Jury selection is the time to talk to the jurors. see whether or not you can be fair and impartial judge of the facts.
So in jury selection, that's what I'm doing. I'm talking to everyone individually. And um I also say if you want to talk to us privately, it's okay. Just go outside and uh you know, not everyone is comfortable getting up in a room full of 30 people and speaking off the cuff. We are.
That's what we do. I love it. enjoy it and I'm a true believer in in the justice system. Like Winston Churchill said about democracy, it's not perfect, but it's the best form of government except for all the others. Is that what it is?
Yeah. It's the best form of government except for >> all the others. Meaning that our system of justice is not perfect, but we try and get it right. And it's as good as it can be. And ultimately, who decides?
>> Citizens.
>> Jurors of the county where we're in trial.
>> So, by a show of hands, how many of you have been jurors before?
>> Excellent. Keep the hands up. Those of you who've been jurors, how many of you have deliberated to a verdict?
And how many of you delivered to a verdict in a civil case? Not a criminal case. Civil case. That's great. That's great. My man over there, million five.
Is that what you awarded? Hopefully.
>> Yeah.
>> Excellent. I wish I was I wish you were on my journey. Truthfully, it's great that you participate because ultimately that's what democracy is, isn't it?
>> We all participate and how the community we have depends on what we how stringently we're going to enforce the law for landlords, for pedestrians, for drivers and that's what keeps us safe hopefully. So after jury selection we and by the way both sides do you want to jump in on jury selection? Both sides get to have their piece and after I finish I say you're going to hear from the defense lawyer Mr. Schmeelin and please give me your attention. So before I mention before I talk to you about my point of view as a defendant in this case, let me just um give you some full disclosure.
I'm not a defendant. I don't like defendants. I don't like to represent insurance companies or big business or the city. When I spoke about when I thought about this particular program, I asked Rob to join me. He said he's only going to do it if he is the plaintiff and I'm the defendant. Okay. He wants to play good cop, bad cop. I'm the bad cop.
He's a good cop. Okay. I don't like to represent defendants. I don't represent defendants. But I do know this. As a plaintiff's attorney, you have to know both sides of the coin.
The best offense is a good defense. And even though I'm a plaintiff, I always figure out what the angle of the defendant is, what they are trying to prove, and what's in the back of their minds. Now, in jury selection, those of you that are sad as jurors know that you're in I'm assuming everybody here when you were a juror probably in New York County over here in Manhattan.
>> Yes.
>> So, you were downtown either 60 Street or maybe 111 or 171 Thomas Street. So, you're in a small room without windows and you're sort of sitting together and you got two attorneys in there. There's not a judge there or there's not a court officer. And a lot of times you got to make peace with your adversary ahead of time. You don't want to have to fight with him or her ahead of time or you don't want to fight with him in front of the juries because nobody really benefits at that point. And a lot of times you got to make sure that you know you keep him in line or he keeps you in line and things things like that. And when I get a juror that I think is going to give an explosive answer, I don't want that juror to say something to sort of pollute the rest of the panel. So, we'll try to take somebody out to talk to them. And sometimes we have to bring a judge and have the judge make a decision.
Um, you you you individuals that have sat as jurors know that the attorneys can have three what's called preempter challenges. They can bounce anybody for whatever the reason, but you can't bounce somebody based upon race or sexual orientation or sex or national origin or age or things of that nature.
And you know, I've had adversaries over the years that have played the race card and I saw it. So, you bring that to the judge, judge's attention. I had an Asian client one time and in the panel I had two prospective Asian jurors. He balanced both of them and I called him out. I'm also going to start to fight in front of the jurors. And I said, "Look, what's going on over here?" Well, you know, uh, he wasn't paying attention. I didn't like the way he looked at me.
Made it great. I said, "That's not going to fly." Spoke to the judge. I made what we call a Batson challenge called Batson against the state of Kentucky to United States Supreme Court case. The judge agreed with me that there was no reason for that. And um, basically these two individuals stayed on my jury. They happened to be excellent jurors. Uh I was trying to play this case. I think we did quite well. But the point of the matter is I saw what they were trying to do. Now reasonable minds can differ. If I were defendant and Rob told you about the fact pattern, >> what kind of jurors do I want? Do you think I as a defendant want people that are renters that live in buildings where the landlord lets the building go to pieces and go to pot and have all sorts of violations? No. I don't want that.
They're going to favor the plaintiff.
Remember, I'm a defendant. What do I want? I want conservative jurors. I want jurors that may have been sued before. I want jurors that own buildings. I want jurors that own co-ops.
>> Okay? I want jurors that work uh for for major companies that may have testified before on behalf of defendants.
Listen to me speak. I got to bite my tongue. This is not my style. Please, I'm a player through and through. I don't like defendants. I don't like insurance companies, but I know how they think. Okay. So, in in any event, that's what I want. Many times I will ask somebody a journal.
>> What kind of newspapers do you read? Why am I asking that question?
Why am I asking that thing?
>> Right? If I know somebody reads, for example, a paper like the Village Voice Liberal type paper, chances are they want to be more plaintiff oriented. And chances are somebody that reads the Wall Street Journal is probably going to be more defendant oriented. You see, so we're trying to figure out a reason behind can differ. What I think is going to be fair and impartial is not necessarily what Rob thinks be fair and partial. So I'll ask those questions.
occupation.
If somebody is a nuclear physicist, if somebody is an accountant, I don't want them on my jury. If I'm a plaintiff, if I'm a defendant, great. You get an accountant on your jury. You're going to get a verdict for $15,492.82.
They're going to figure these things out to a penny with a sharp pencil. I want somebody that can think in the abstract.
If I'm a plaintiff, if I'm a defendant, it's a different ball game. Do you understand? Now, I had a guy one time, and again, I'm a plaintiff now, but he testified that, you know, he says he can be fair and impartial, but he was a defendant. He didn't have insurance and he lost his house.
>> He says, but I still can be fair and impartial. Now, I'm a plaintiff.
>> He says that terrific. I don't believe it. So, I take them on the outside and I try asking questions. Said, "Well, you know, you you lost your house. That's not too too good, is it?" No, it isn't.
And um you still can be fair to someone like the plaintiff over here that's going to be asking for money. Like the plaintiff in your case to ask, "Yeah, I can be fair." Yeah, right. Tongue and cheek. We call the judge down there. You know, sometimes the judge has to get involved. You know, I get Judge Robinson to ask him questions and see whether or not you can really delve into those sorts of things, whether he can be fair, impartial. If I have a case where, and this is different, but if I have a case where a little kid is hit run over by a car, I want young mothers that don't drive because they're scared of cars and they have an internal incident to protect the child. As a as a point, as a defendant, what do I want as a defendant? I want bus drivers. I want train operators. I want truck drivers, cab drivers, people that realize that but for the grace of God that could have been them and they, you know, avoided an accident by a by a millimeter. So the point of view that a plaintiff has, the point of view defendant has are going to be different. Reasonable lines can differ. And in the case scenario that Rob mentioned to you, I want landlords on that case >> as a defendant. I want um uh groundskeepers on that case who has testified, who have seen what things are like in the building. Okay? And I want people on that case that have been sued and uh we're not happy with the result.
Those are the things that a defendant wants. Not that I personally want, but again, I'm defend. Okay. So, we have a jury which is selected. Then the jury clerk is going to send this up back to the judge and uh the judge is going to do a conference and then ask for an opening statement. The plaintiff will go first and Mr. Bellinsson will tell you about opening statements what he presents in their case.
>> Thank you your honor. May I please the court members of the jury defense council and of course my name is Robert Bellson and we're here because the dependence lawsuit that caused my act my client to get hurt.
Um, and I'd say something like this. Uh, you know, on July 10th of 2019, Maria knew that she was lucky and she had the dream job.
>> She she knew she was lucky. She knew she had a dream job and she loved her husband and her family. What she didn't know, what she couldn't possibly know is that her life was about to change. And her life was about to change because the defendant could not be bothered to fix a recurring problem with flood that caused a dangerous condition that caused my client to get hurt. And now she knows for the rest of her life has permanent injuries. She's had fractures.
She's had surgery. And for the rest of her life, she's going to be suffering these injuries. All because the defendant couldn't be bothered to fix what was wrong. And that's why we're here in court.
I always try and make it bigger than the issue of plaintiff versus defendant. And then what I'll do is talk about the evidence. You're going to see medical records. And the medical records, you're going to see that my client uh was went to the hospital 3 hours after the accident. She was seen the emergency room. She said that she slipped on a a a wet pavement. Now, invariably in medical records, there's always something that comes up that's going to be a little contradictory to what my client's case is. So, you have to decide whether to make a big deal about it or not. And sometimes I will and I'll say defense council's going to talk to you about how the hospital record contradicts what she's saying in court, but that's not true. The truth of the matter is she told the clerk at the hospital what happened and they wrote it down wrong.
>> That's what happened. It happens. No big deal. There's no grand conspiracy here.
Um you're going to hear from a police officer who responded to the scene. He's going to tell you what he saw that he came upon my client on the ground covered in mud >> and she was in pain and she went to the hospital. Uh, you're going to hear from Dr. Jones who examined my client, who did surgery on my client. He's going to tell you that the injuries that she suffered from this accident are real. That they're serious, that she's gotten better somewhat.
surgery has helped her, but ultimately she's going to be living with pain and discomfort and loss of range of motion the rest of her life.
And when we're done with all the evidence, and remember we talked about in jury selection, how we both have the opportunity to call witnesses and to bring in evidence and to put it in front of you and to challenge each other's evidence with crossexamination.
But on the final anal When it's all said and done, I think you're going to find that the defendant was negligent, that their negligence was a substantial or important factor in causing the accident and causing Maria's injuries. And I'm going to ask you at the close of the evidence of my sation to fairly and adequately compensate her for her injuries. Thank you very much.
So after the plaintiff makes an opening statement, the defendant makes an opening statement.
Now, if I'm a defendant, I realize right now that he just gave you a lot of information. He just basically at free range and set the the score, set the path for what you can expect. I always tell, not that I always tell, but a defendants's attorney would tell the jurors, you know, if everything that Mr. Bellson tells you is proven, then you write him a checkbook like whatever he wants. I feel confident in making that statement because you're not going to hear this in this case. In this case, you're going to hear that there's something called fault and that the plaintiff, Maria, was negligent herself, that she could have pre prevented this accident, that she knew about it. She's a nice person, granted. But you know what? She causes accident herself. It wasn't my client.
It wasn't the defendant landlord's fault for this accident. Also, you're going to find that these doctors that Maria went to uh were recommended to her by Mr. Bellson's office. I want you to keep that in the back of your mind and see whether or not that they um uh they have favored uh the president and they have favored Mr. Bell's office.
You're going to hear all these things.
make sure that he proves everything that he tells you he's going to prove. And I think you'll find that that's not going to appear the way it does. So again, a defendant is going to say that. A defendant also may say that, you know what, there's also a witness that saw that Maria really didn't slip over there, but she looked to her left. She looked to her right. She looked up. She looked down. There was the video and she just plpped herself down on the floor. Now, you know, unfortunately, there are cases like that. You know, uh it happens. There's good and bad. And when there are fraudulent cases like that, the cases should always be dismissed and the plaintiffs should be fined and so on.
Those things are not right.
Unfortunately, it happens. I'm not going to say it happens all the time. It does happen and could happen. If a defendant thinks that they have a video showing otherwise, they're going to blame that and they're going to tell you about those sorts of things. So again, the defendant is going to say other things to make him prove his case. After that, the judge is going to say, "Okay, Mr. Bellinsson, call your first witness. And at this time, the plaintiff puts on his case. Uh Rob can come up now and tell you the different uh witnesses that he intends to prove what he thinks um you know, you can expect from each of them.
Sort of like amplifying what he told you in jury selement.
But now, you know, he told you the plaintiffs did this, that, the other thing. The plaintiff herself will testify and then so on. But he'll tell you this.
And when the judge says, "Okay, Mr. Felson," that's when I usually go, at least when I was a young lawyer, I did. Those of us who, you know, Joel mentioned a good point. Those of us who actually try cases, we count us. And when there is a And it's rare.
I'm doing this. I've never had a client say to me, "This didn't really happen.
I'm I'm making it's rare, but if it happens, it's it's terrible for the system." It really is. It undermines confidence for jurors. It makes our job more difficult. Makes us, you know, it's tough representing plaintiffs. You see these ads on TV and everyone's got screaming, waving money around. It's not like that. people I represent, real people who have real accidents who get really hurt, um they would trade back whatever money they get back just to not have to live in pain and not have spasms and not have to undergo the the surgery and the treatment. So it's it's no picnic.
Um but assuming we're going forward, um a trial can be anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of months. Um, typically the court day starts at 9:30 in the morning, 10:00 in the morning. We break for lunch between 1 and 2 and then from 2:00 till 4:30, we're taking we're working in court. So in in the confines of that those time frames, we have to get in witnesses, plaintiff, doctor, an eyewitness, maybe the EMS technician, the police officer, and think of it like a puzzle. Each witness has a particular piece of information that they're going to give. Hopefully supporting my theory of the case. What I told you in jury selection, what I told you in my opening, hopefully the police officer is going to come in and say, "I don't remember this, but according to my report, which I prepared in the course of my job as a police officer, this is what happened." Yes, sir. Do all those people that come to to witness and tell the side of your story get paid for coming there?
>> No. That's a good that's a great question. Typically lay witnesses, police officers, eyewitnesses, we call them lay witnesses. They're not experts.
They don't usually get paid. Sometimes if someone's missing work, we're allowed to compensate them for their time missing work. It's got to be pretty much commensurate with what they earn. You can't pay someone $10,000 because they're coming to court and saying something that's going to be helpful.
Um, but expert witnesses, yes, they get paid. And by expert witnesses, they're talking usually, as Joel said earlier, doctors, surgeons, engineers, um, um, biomechanical engineers, uh, all different type all people who have specialized knowledge, economists, they typically get paid. And I bring that out right away because I want I want the jury to know that, you know, that they get paid. Um, there's nothing wrong with it, but that may be cons may be an issue for you to consider when you hear what their testimony is. And I like to do that, especially with, you know, doctors. There's defense doctors and plaintiff doctors, treating doctors or plaintiffs doctors. Defense doctors are hired by the insurance company to examine someone and they give their best, their best um take on what they find. And There are some doctors who do this a lot for the defendants. Do you see a pain plaintiff every day or multiple plaintiffs a day and write a report saying she's all better or the injuries aren't that serious and and uh she can go on with her her life. I mean, so I challenge that on my cross- examination. I challenge that. Uh but typically I would put on all my witnesses, the police officer, the plaintiff, uh perhaps her husband or her daughter to talk about her injuries and how they affect her life. And then a doctor who can give us opinions about the injuries and whether they're permanent or not and and whether they're causally related to the accident. Do you know what I mean by causally related to the accident? Like if you have arthritis and you get hurt and your back is killing you because you have arthritis has nothing to do with the accident of the injuries. It's only if you're hurt because of the accident. That's what I mean by the causal relationship. And that's an issue that defendants and plaintiffs fight over a lot if something is causally related. Um so that's that's makes the trial process so interesting. But typically I'll put on my whole case before the defendant calls their first witness. Every once in a while we'll take a witness out of turn to accommodate someone. And Yes, sir.
>> What happen if you have an injury early like like slip this four and five early >> and then you've been treated take shots on your back. Now what happen? you go to work and you actually fail.
>> It's a great question. It's a great question. The answer is um you have what's called an exacerbation, which is a fancy way of saying you had another accident or an incident that made worse your injury. And so, typically in a personal injury lawsuit, which is what I practice in, um you give the other side, you give the defense medical reasonably in under the sun. So, they're find out.
They're going to know about your prior condition, what prior treatment you had, and you hope that the you had an injury, you got treatment, you resolved, it was all better, you were going on with your life, and then this happens and that exacerbated or made worse your back condition, your condition. So, you could still recover for it, but you're not going to recover as much because the defendant is going to argue more times than not successfully that he already had a bad back. So, it's not like we injured his back here.
exacerbation probably not as lucrative or or as monetarily rewarding as if it's a 22 23 year old person that never had any prior problem with the back. So does that answer your question sir?
>> Yeah. So in my case, I have my back somehow I got four and five changes, right?
>> I've been taking shots.
>> Uh right now I feel good through I've been taking shots for like maybe four or five years.
>> Uh with them shots I'm better. So let's say again I'm working down I get hurt again and it erupt.
my four and five business what what can happen to me?
>> Well, you mean legally like if the case?
Yeah. Yeah. So, like what I'm saying is that's what would happen. you you would uh let's say you bring a workers's comp case. happens on the job and then you know the the defendant the it's the employer's lawyer worker's comp lawyer who's defending his claim would get access to your records and would say judge he already had twole herniation or two-le surgery so not worth that much and we'd say no judge he had uh treatment he had injections and he was doing fine went to portard he was skydiving a week earlier, playing football, whatever. You know, whatever the whatever the evidence is, we we'd use that to advance your case to to advocate for you. And ultimately, what would happen, a judge or a jury would determine what that's worth.
>> Wow.
>> But but that would be, you know, it's clients, not always, but sometimes think if I don't tell my lawyer, they're not going to know about it. That's a bad idea. If you're if if you know about it, if it's in a record somewhere, insurance company's going to know about it, the defendant's going to know about it. And the worst thing in my position as a as a lawyer representing people, the worst thing that can happen is that there's an injury that my client doesn't tell me about or treatment that my client doesn't tell me about. The defendant brings it up in court for the first time. And now the most important part of any trial, and I don't care what you do, Credibility with credibility. If you're credible, telling the whole truth about something, it's counterproductive. So, I always I tell my clients, I come in, you know, I just try cases. And by the way, those of you who I don't know if you were here, about a year ago, Joel and I did this um a mock jury selection at the old location.
I don't know if you were here. And at the time, Joel was the plaintiff's lawyer and I was the defense lawyer and I had these the misfortune of being the lawyer for the truck driver who hit little Johnny Jones, the boy who darted out the street. So, it's tough being a defendant. Um, but uh they fill a necessary role. So, I digress. From my vantage point, as as a lawyer trying cases, I I tell my clients, look, the only way this works well is if you're completely open and honest, give the jury as you can. If it looks like you're hiding something, you want them to know it's not going to go well.
So, be honest, be truthful, and uh you know, tell your story, tell what happened. And that's the way the system works.
Two, the defense too, you know, a good defense lawyer is not going to tell his client, look, this is what you say, even if it's not the truth. You just don't do that. It's not the right way to do it.
If you do that, you're not going to be practicing law for very long. Certainly not for the 16 years combined that Mr. and I have been practicing. Yes, sir.
Don't they try to make it so that every injury that you have will say isn't it true that you went to Dr. uh Smith the chiropractor and you complain of searing pain. Isn't that the truth? Isn't that what happened? Well, no. Well, if the record said that, would that be false? You know, that's that's what you try and do and to discredit the plaint and and that's fair. If there's really a record that says that, that's fair game and you're allowed to do that. What you're not allowed to do is pretend there's a record. You tell someone that this didn't happen this way and that you like pretend you're reading from a record that's just make believe.
That's not that's dirty pool. That's not how we do things as lawyers. That's not how we do it. But if you have a good faith basis to ask about a prior accident or prior injury, you do it.
many times when I'm trying cases and I try a lot of cases. I have over a hundred verdicts in Supreme Court throughout the state of New York over the years. Many know your hope will prevail. You're hoping that what your client is saying is the truth and it's borne out. There are no prior records that going to contradict you. So, you know, There's a process in place and if you care about doing it right and doing it well, you want to do it the best of your ability.
You want to do it the way it's supposed to be done. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it. Yes.
>> I have a question. Um, does workman compensation is it limited in terms of how long it's going to be provided or once a person gets it they get that?
>> It's usually limited and if there's and I don't I don't let me say this. I don't do work with compensation law. That's an administrative hearing from a judge.
Um it's limited in the sense of if they find that it's a permanent injury, typically they'll pay you a full a final payment. Uh and that's the process of negotiation between the claimants's lawyer and the lawyer for the workers compensation carrier. So, I hope that answers your question.
>> But, um, I'm digressing a little bit about the trial process, but typically a trial is a search for the truth.
>> And there's, you know, there fancy words we use and there's processes by which we do it and and and we dress a certain way, but ultimately, you're all New Yorkers and you're all judges every day of your life. sit on the subway, you see someone spreading out, man spreading over three seats, and you judge that person. We judge people acting fool of the street. And and that's, you know, we're we're New Yorkers. We judge. But when you're a juror, you know, my experience is jurors take it seriously. They try and do the best job they can. I'm sure you guys had that experience when you were jurors. You don't want to get picked. Nobody Nobody sends an invitation to jury selection.
It's a summon to come down there, right?
And nobody wants to get picked, but my experience is that when you get selected, you try your best to do a good job.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Hi.
>> I know you competition, but >> Well, you talk about a workers compensation claim. Um, if you If the claim is adjudicated, in other words, heard and it's ruled against you, um, I think you have a right to appeal it, but appeals are pretty tough in that area. So, you know, I think you have that right, but beyond that, I'm not really sure what other remedies you have. Workers compensation is kind of strict administrative remedy, and if you work if you get hurt on the job, you can't typically sue your employer. You have to go through conversation.
>> Let me make a suggestion. Let's talk offline. I'll talk to you when we're done with this because we're being recorded. You may not be saying what you're you're saying. I'll be happy.
We'll be happy to talk to you. My pleasure. My pleasure. So, I'm I'm just going back again after I put on my case.
My primopacia case is the the Greek Latin term Greek term primopacia. I got to put on I got to make out my case. And this is happening over the course of days or weeks. And a lot of times what'll happen is that the judge, he or she, they don't know the case. They usually know the lawyers. If we've been around, if we're veterans like Joel and I are, we've been doing this for a while. You start to know the judges.
Some judges are better than others at settling cases. Sometimes judges will get involved and say, "Look, I think you have a good case. I think you have a problem here with your prior injury or something. How about we do this and and try and settle case?" I like settling cases while the trial is going on.
Number one, it's certainty. I like to be have certainty for my client. And number two, it lets my client be heard.
And you know that's a big deal when you go to court. You know we we lawyers we're used to being in court. We're comfortable clients. This is an unfamiliar location for clients. They have to take off their hat. They can't be on their phone. They they have to sit there and and and look a certain way. So when a client feels like they've gotten a fair shake, that that's a good feeling. That's a really good feeling. And then being on the plaintiff's side, the real special thing about the work that I do is that when I get my client some some money and and Joel Bwood does the same thing. We both do plaintist work. When I get my client a recovery or settlement or or a win, it can change their life. A sudden they can send their kid to college or or or buy a home or or get the treatment that they need that's going to make their injury a little bit better. And that's a really that's I can't tell you how satisfying that is. Forget the money, forget the accolades and being recognized and all that. I I became a lawyer to to to help people to to be of service and and it's a really wonderful rewarding experience when that comes together. It hurts sometimes when it doesn't work and you lose and and when you think you have a good case and you go down, that hurts, but you do the best you can. You cut the losses behind you and you move on with your life. Sir, do you have a question?
>> Yeah. Is this why they always try to get a whole lot cuz all those people that's getting paid get money?
>> I'm not sure I understand. What What do you mean?
>> Like, okay.
When you have a a case and say you going to get $2 million.
>> Yeah. All of those people that get paid in the process, that $2 million might not be enough for you. Well, >> offense. It depends. I I I never tell a client I never mention the money figure because it's a function of insurance coverage, liability, damages, uh how strong a case, you know, there's all these factors. And any lawyer, and there are lawyers, I'm sure, that are out there that say, "I'm going to get you a million dollars. Don't worry about it. I promise you. No, we don't have crystal balls. We don't know that. I tell clients, this is what I think the case is worth. This is why I think that.
But at the end of the day, you know what we do is as trial lawyers is interesting. Who knows the TV show Deal or No Deal?
>> Anyone ever seen that?
>> That's exactly I tell my my wife's grandmother, that's what I do. That's my job. I say my part, do you want to take what they're offering or do you want to go to the next step and put on a doctor?
Do you want to let the jury decide the case? Deal or no deal. That's what it is all the time. Sometimes there's no offer during a trial. And and if there's no offer, you have nowhere to go but off.
And uh you know, sometimes there's a lot of money being offered and the client thinks I'm going to do better and they they want to roll the dice. You never know. You never know. So ultimately I the way I do it is I let my client decide. I hopefully build enough trust where I can give my opinion and tell my client what I think. But ultimately I say I work for you. This is your case.
This is your chance to uh to recover.
>> Yes ma'am.
>> Great question. Everyone hear that?
What's my opinion based on? So, first of all, years of practice, years of trying cases. Uh, it's based on what I think how I think the case is going in. You know, while the case is being tried, you know, when things are going well for you, you know, when things are going poorly for you. If your client is arguing with the defense lawyer about the prior medical records that say XYZ and your client's denying it and the records are there and they're coming out evidence and and they're it's you know it's there. It's not good.
Alternatively, sometimes it's going really well for your client. You think the case is going really well and I think you can do better. So there's no one there's no easy answer. What what's my recommendation based on information?
Based on information the information that I have, including my experience, including how the trial is going and what I think is going to happen.
>> Case in point, you have back injury for this, >> right?
And now he's suffering and he's permanently damaged.
>> That goes into that goes into it, too.
That's part of it, too. Did you recover?
Did you have surgery? These are all pieces of the puzzle that help inform us what we what we can do.
>> But you're lacking his body to determine how that dollar satisfy Bahamas.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. You really can't We're not allowed to say that. We're not allowed to say he should be sitting in the give the money to go to the Bahamas and you know, you really can't say that. That's not a fair comment. Yeah. Right.
>> You're not in this body with that being an >> But I'm never Exactly. Never. You know, we're advocates. We lawyers are advocates. I'm not in my client's living in my client's life. All I can do is say, "This is what she's going through."
And as a lawyer, what I try and do, and I think this is what makes me a good lawyer, I really try and learn what's happening with my client.
>> They're not sleeping right. Show me where you sleep. I go to their house. I sit and look at the chair that they're sleeping in instead of the bed. So, yeah, you're never in your client's shoes. But you try and do your best to learn about what they're going through and to advocate for them. That's the job. That's the position here. So, let let me move on because we have other topics to cover. I So, when I put on my mic, after I put on my case, hopefully I have the jury crying and the judge applauding. That doesn't happen. That's on on TV. That happens. That's not what happens. We should do a segment of like the difference between television law shows and the real life law shows. Like I I can't watch TV shows because I'll sit and my kids be like, "This is so interesting." I say, "It doesn't happen like this. That's not what that's hearsay. You can't do that. Nobody comes in and confesses." But >> but you do the best you can with what you have. And after you put on your case, you hope that the defendant doesn't do a good job putting on their case. And and and to that end, that's what Mr. Schmelton's going to do now.
He's going to talk about all the holes in my case. And if I'm smart, I'll preview that a little bit so they're not surprised. You're not surprised by that.
I'll I'll say, "Now, it's true this wasn't witnessed, but my client is a upstanding member of the community." And and you know, I don't think waited 67 years of her life to commit this scam, pretend that she fell down when she fell down and was really out. So, so that's what defense council will do now in his uh in his place and and he'll uh give you what his counsel.
>> Okay. So as a defendant by my tongue I'm biting my tongue but as a defendant I don't have to do anything.
Defendant can just sit back and make the plaintiff prove his case. Defendant doesn't have to do anything.
Generally speaking as a defendant what a defendant will do is this. Once the plaintiff Maria testifies, the defendant is going to cross that Maria and going to see what testimony she gives here in court as opposed to what she gave when she gave a deposition. How many people here have ever heard of a deposition?
Okay. When you have a lawsuit, there's a time when the other attorney gets a chance to ask you questions as a plaintiff. When did the accident happen?
Date time, location, how it happened, what are your injuries, what medical providers did you go to, and so on and so forth. So, if there's any inconsistencies, the defendant is going to bring that up right then and there.
If there are no inconsistencies at that particular point, and that's right, because there's always going to be something. Uh, the defendant is going to try to show that the plaintiff again should know about that that that Maria lived in the building. She lived there for 20 years and she saw that this happened all the time and she could have prevented this from taking place. Yes, sir.
>> Okay. in in the case what you're saying about uh they have to make all that report.
What happens if they lose their memory from the fall?
>> All right, that's another question also.
Many many times what'll happen is this.
If the plaintiff loses memory as a result of that, that will be an item of damages. That will be another one of her claims. The PL's attorney is going to have to bring in a neurologist, bring in a doctor to be able to testify that she has a head injury. and a head injury prevented her from remembering certain things because otherwise anybody can say, "Oh, I don't remember." And you know, I'll tell you something. Over the years, I've gotten a responses from plenty of and defendants at this time because that's what I try cases where they say, "I didn't know." Well, I asked about a rug. How what was the dimension of the rug? I don't know. How was the rug affixed to the floor? I don't know.
Was there any tape under the rug? I don't know. Were there any wrinkles in the rug? I don't know. Where did you buy the rug? How often is the rug inspected?
How long is it maintained? You say, "I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
Jurors are smart. They see you're trying to avoid a question. This you're trying to hide something. So, these are things that are brought up in terms of that.
Now, I may also put on my own witness, meaning that the groundskeeper might have been able to say, "Wait a minute.
Now, there's no blood over there. Where are photos? Did the plaintiff show any photos? The plaintiff showing and problems with respect to this?" There was no problem whatsoever with this mud.
This mud happened 2 minutes beforehand.
There was somebody else maybe that was making a delivery and just dropped some garbage or something like that. And this is all uh not the way things had happened. The plaintiff is bringing on medical doctors. I'm going to cross-examine those. I'm going to find out. Okay, Dr. Jones, you treated Maria.
How are you referred to Maria? Well, Mr. Bellson's office referred me. Well, is Mr. Bell's office paying you anything to testify? this is all going to come out and how many other cases did you testify for Mr. developments in his office and have his office also recommended other cases to you where you didn't have to testify. So these are things which come okay I'm done with my case at this particular point I want to try to move on because we're running a little time problem. The next step's going to be summations. Now the plaintiff spoke first to the jury. Now the defendant speaks first. So now I'm a defendant.
I'm not going to speak and I'm going to tell you right now that the case in this particular case had shown that there was no defective condition that the defective condition if there was a defective condition it was no and that she Maria should have known about it and that she contributed to her own occurrence and that her injuries are not as severe as they are. Why? Because as a defendant, I have the right to have Maria examined by my own doctor. A doctor that's going to do an independent medical examination of the independent doctor. I say quote unquote, how independent is it? Okay. But the point of the matter is a doctor is going to say something else to tell something else to you.
During the course of this trial, I know I'm not telling Mr. jury now, but I know during the course of trial, there was settled negotiations and I know Mr. Bell made a demand of a million dollars and I know I made an offer of $100,000 and the plaintiff didn't take it. So, I'm going to tell you that when Mr. Bellson is going to speak after me, I'm not in a position when I'm going to be able to answer any of his questions. So, I want you to think about when he makes these statements what I would have said about that and how I would have responded to him. And he's going to ask you for a lot of money.
He may even ask you for $10,000. He may even ask you for $15,000, maybe even $25,000.
I'm going to say that as a defendant.
Why? Because when he then asked for a million dollars and I'm saying that 10 to 15 and 20 is a lot. Well, then right now he just made himself look like a fool because of the fact that he's asking for so much so much money when I'm saying what is reasonable. So I'm putting him in a position at that particular point where he's going to have to be walking on eggs to ask for all that type of money. So that's what a defendant will do in terms of that. Then again the next step is going to be that the plaintiff is going to have the last say and uh Mr. Bellson now will give his summation to Yes. Yes sir.
>> What are the pros and cons of the of the attorney not wanting what is the pros and cons of the attorney not wanting to depose the plaintiff?
>> Okay. The defendant's attorney must always depose the plaintiff in a case.
Yes.
>> Is that your question?
>> No. No. What I'm saying is not in my situation that they don't want to defose me. They said they'll wait.
>> That's then the defendant's attorney is guilty of malpractice because you got to know what is the other side's going to show. You don't stick your head in the sand and then at that particular point um you know don't want to hear about it because it's going to come out. So you better know about it ahead of time. any defendants's attorney that doesn't want to depose the plaintiff is really, in my opinion, guilty of malpractice.
>> Okay. All right. So, now you're going to hear the plaintiff make his final opening uh final summation and he's going to ask you for money. So, you know, you'll you'll feel that.
>> You have two questions online.
>> Okay. Yes. Why don't we go online?
Question online.
It's called Go ahead.
>> Go ahead.
>> Yeah, I'm too I'm going to come put myself back on you.
>> Thank you.
So, I'm going to refer to one of your attorneys here. I had a I had a case regarding discrimination and I more or less did all the work myself.
So I did all the work myself. I submitted all the evidence myself. I didn't get phone calls from the attorney on time. He didn't meet people on time.
And when I got my decision, he didn't even address it. Okay? And I really thought that that was a disservice to me. It wasted my time and now I do stuff where I started at I think you're getting into some personal questions here and it's probably not it's probably not a good idea to uh ask personal questions about a personal case that you may have. If you'd like, you can call uh the >> It's not a personal question. I just want to know do y'all have because it doesn't seem like he was he was let's say vers in that practice. So I'd like to know do y'all have any attorneys attorneys within that panel that have discrimination because he did not seem to practice that and it wasted my time.
>> I I understand if you want you can call Nan tomorrow. They'll give you my phone number. I can recommend you to somebody for a second opinion on a discrimination case if you'd like.
>> But the I just don't want it to be that you refer me to the same person. I'm quite sure you probably be there now, but I don't want to be that was a waste of my time and now I have to do an appeal. He didn't do anything for me. He didn't help me and he he I just I'm so >> Why don't we do this? Listen to me. Why don't we do this? If you want, you can call Nan tomorrow. They will give you my phone number and you can speak to me about this other attorney and perhaps I can refer you to somebody else.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So, N does nan have discrimination attorneys.
>> Does does Nan have discrim There are some attorneys.
>> I think that they do. I I mean that's that's what they >> discrimination attorneys. Yeah. there are some attorneys that uh I can refer you to >> that may be able to help you.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Snow.
>> My pleasure. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, now the judge is going to say uh Michael's counsel is going to now give his uh summation and at this particular point he will tell you what he intends to to show.
>> Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Can you hear me now?
>> Yes.
>> I I have a um I I have a housing and tenant issue and um it's a government agency that's basically trying to push me around.
>> I've been locked out several times and I need an attorney's representation. I still have some uh I I have a legal background. I'm retired and basically I'm in a situation where there was an illegal landlord and the owner is pretending that they don't know that there was an illegal landlord and I need an attorney. I could represent myself prosay but I don't feel comfortable doing that against a government agency.
>> So I need help.
>> All right. I agree. Again, you can call him in tomorrow. There is an attorney on the panel. Uh he's not here tonight. He does landlord tenant issues and they will give you his name. I don't want to mention his name right now.
>> And should I hold on to get his number or >> Yes. You know what? Just um I'm going to have Chris Matthews give you his name and number right now. Okay. And uh maybe he'll put it in the chat for you. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> And I'm in New Jersey. I'm not in New York.
>> Oh, I thought it's New York. All right.
That's a different story. That's a different story.
>> Well, can I have this phone number up?
Because I would appreciate it.
>> Why don't you do this? Give me a call tomorrow. I will give you somebody in the state of New Jersey. I don't know if this attorney handles it, but at least uh he does some landlord tenant work and he may be able to help you. I I don't know for sure, but you'll call me tomorrow.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Okay.
>> I'm holding for the number. Did you say the number? Did I miss it?
>> Okay. Hold on a second. Okay.
Oh, put it in the chat.
>> Put in the chat.
>> So, call call banana.
>> You can call me tomorrow morning.
They'll give you my number in the chat.
Okay. And I'll give you somebody >> in New Jersey.
>> I'm done in Chris, you good to go?
>> Yes.
>> You know, this happens, by the way, before I put on my lawyer hat.
This happens in court once in a while where the judge has other case and other business and we'll put the trial aside and jump into something while the lawyers the witnesses all wait there.
Typically judges don't do it because they don't want to waste jurors times but judges work hard. They have a lot of work going on and uh folks can do a pretty good job. So may it please the court, Judge Robinson, uh members of the jury, what you heard from my colleague, Mr. Schmel was an excellent summation, but he is wrong about a lot of things. I don't get the last word. You do. You, ladies and gentlemen, will decide the issues in this case. And um I've had a situation before where a defense lawyer, there are a couple of trial tactics like Joel just gave there. Defense lawyer will try and preempt it and say he may ask me for a lot of money. He may ask you for $25,000 and I've laughed out loud. I've actually sat at my table and laughed out loud and said, "Your honor, please let the defense council know. I'll speak for myself." Number one, and number two, I'm going to ask for a lot more than that.
and he knows it because we've had discussions about this and he knows that that's not being genuine. That's not being real. But that's done to undermine my request for money because at the end of the day, that's the only remedy in a lawsuit. I said it in jury selection.
The trial is not about money and it's not about dollars. It's about liability.
It's about what happened. It's about injuries. But the summation I try and tie together in my request for money say you only get one life and this is the life Maria's been living and it didn't have to be this way. It's because the defendant chose a shortcut. Instead of fixing it, making it right, they swept it aside and now they're asking to sweep Maria aside. Don't do it. Protect her the fullest extent of the law and compensate her fairly. My suggestion, and we're allowed to make suggestions, is between $400 and $700,000 for past pain and suffering. And for future pain and suffering based on a 25 year future life expectancy, I ask you at least a million dollars. Thank you for your time. I appreciate your consideration.
And I sit down, the judge will charge the jury, tell the jury the law. We go over it beforehand so that we know what the judge is charging the jury and what law the judge is going to tell the jury about and I try and work that into my summation but we're not allowed to get into the law so what I say is his honor Judge Robinson will tell you that a defendant has a legal obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition here's why they didn't do it here's why my client deserves to win this So at this point we know how much that policy is for example you know it's4 million >> good good question so you said the word policy that you know we're not allowed to mention that in court jurors are not supposed to know about insurance for for pardon the expression for policy reasons not insurance policy but for public policy reasons jurors aren't supposed to know that there's insurance and whether there is is not insurance. It doesn't matter. The trial is not about that. But we know about that. We know about it and we have discussions and occasionally we'll set there are settlements that happen often times while the jury is deliberating while they're deciding. And while they're deliberating, sometimes they write a note. Can we have a readback of this? And when they ask for a readback, it gives us insight as to what they may be thinking. We don't know. We're not in the room. So, if a jury comes back and says, "I want to I want to look at the medical records of Miss Miss Jones's prior accident," that's good for the defendant. That's not good for me. If a jury, you know, comes back and says the uh the jury wants a calculator or can we award more money than the lawyer asked for, that's good for me. It's not good for the defendant. So, uh those are things that help inform us along the way, but ultimately it's a interesting process, the trial process. We try and do it well. We try and do it the right way and um I still get excited about doing it and I'm still honored and privileged to stand up as a lawyer and and fight for my clients. Thank you guys. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, ordinarily and what we did was we did part one now and part two is when you would ask various questions, but we see that we had taken questions during part one. So, that was a way to smooth things out. So thereafter, you know, sometimes we can stick around, you can talk amongst yourselves. And I want to thank everybody for coming here this evening. Give yourself a round of applause. Give a round of applause for the mass support there. There's so much work here. And again, if you learned something, please come back again. Bring a friend next time. We're going to have uh on June 25th, we hope to have a few judges here. And that's always very interesting when the judge can give insights about the judicial system and about the cases in general. Okay, thank you very much and hope to see everybody soon.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
