A law school professor shared with his class an amusing exchange between a trial attorney and a judge concerning a sustained objection to the lawyer’s method of direct examination. “But Judge,” argued the lawyer, “I’ve been doing it this way for 25 years!” to which Her Honor responded, “perhaps so, counsel, but if that’s true, then you have been doing it wrong for 25 years!”
Whether relatively new to the courtroom or a veteran litigator, trial lawyers come to learn, both through formal instruction and by experience, that there are many ways of approaching the fundamental tasks of opening statements, direction examination, cross examination, registering objections and summations, each of which is an essential component to trying a case successfully. Yet, teachers, textbooks and even experience notwithstanding, a prudent attorney would do well to consider another important source of instruction, i.e., the views of the judges who preside at their trials. In much the same manner that the expectations of appellate judges were solicited in a prior article,1 here interviews were conducted of more than a dozen state and federal trial judges to obtain their views on these basic, albeit critical, areas of trial practice. Following are tips on what they and their judicial colleagues believe work best in conducting an effective jury trial.2
