Garner's Guide to Making Briefs More Persuasive: Tip 10 - Revise. Then proof carefully.

Garner cites several law journal articles and books published by judges and others, in order to make clear that briefs submitted by attorneys often include errors (such mistakes in grammar or simply a 'jerky' style) which can only be detected by proofreading carefully and often. The attorney will ultimately be held responsible for any unintentional mistakes. Every attorney should assume that his or her brief contains some mistakes. Take these steps to find them:

1. Begin by checking for mistakes in substance. It is not unusual for a brief to contain contradictory assertions.

2. A brief should not be merely edited line by line. It should be re-written.

3. Confirm that the central point is clearly conveyed by the brief.

4. Confirm that all counter arguments have been addressed.

5. Verify that one argument made in the brief leads to the second and each successive argument.

6. Consider if an analogy could be useful for any of the arguments.

7. Make sure the brief has an appropriate tone.

8. Make several passes: once for punctuation; once for formatting; once for transitions; once to confirm the headings are consistent.

9. Triple-check citations and cross references.

10. Inconsistencies can be detected by reading a brief backwards.

Cornell Survey of Juror Thoughts on Trial Technology

Two years ago, the Cornell Law Review published the results of a survey of more than 500 jurors who served at federal trials. Hon. Amy J. St. Eve & Gretchen Scavo, What Do Juries Really Think: Practical Guidance for Trial Lawyers, 103 Cornell L. Rev. Online 149 (2018). The authors of the study are a judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a former Winston & Strawn LLP partner. The article discusses jurors' thoughts about lawyers' use of technology and the presentation of evidence that paralegals help prepare. Here are some key points:

1. Jurors prefer that attorneys use technology to present evidence.

2. Jurors appreciate the use of timelines. They want evidence to presented chronologically.

3. The main issue the surveyed jurors focused on was "attorney organization, preparation, and efficiency". Id. at 155.

4. Jurors frequently complained that they were not able to hear the attorneys. The authors recommend testing the acoustics of the courtroom before the trial begins.

5. "Many jurors are accustomed to learning through technology, and technologically enhanced presentations present an ideal platform to summarize and connect the dots between the evidence presented at trial and the applicable law in a way that is especially useful for visual learners." Id. at 169-70.

6. Jurors have a preference for evidence that is displayed visually on screens.

7. Jurors will be critical if attorneys cannot use technology effectively. They complained when attorneys did not learn how to use hardware beforehand.

8. Every trial tech who has been in the hot seat will appreciate that the authors admonish lawyers to, "take the time to learn about and practice with the courtroom's technology so that the trial is not a dress rehearsal." Id. at *170.

9. Jurors prefer that deposition designations not be made for long excerpts of testimony.

10. Focus on the relevance of exhibits and do waste time discussing unimportant details.

11. Give the jury sufficient time to read exhibits that are displayed to them.

The article also points out that jurors "despise--and are even insulted" when attorneys excessively repeat questions or basic concepts. Id. at 153. They also do not like it when attorneys are hostile to each other, or when they attack witnesses.

The article ends with this conclusion: "Effective use of technology helps, as does organizing evidence into a cohesive timeline or other easy to-follow summary." Id. at 174.

Garner's Guide to Making Briefs More Persuasive: Tip 9 - Allow time for a full citation check of

Here's another tip from Bryan A. Garner's The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts.

Don't discount the importance of the most mundane and common of paralegal tasks. Garner stresses that inaccurate citations are prejudicial to the interests of a client. He advises that someone other than the author of the brief check citations, and that they be painstaking in their review. 'Cold-checks' are best.

Garner claims that it takes only 15 seconds to confirm the case name, volume, page, and abbreviations of a legal citation are correct. (As opposed to 15 minutes in pre-online legal research service age.) While a tool like Lexis BriefCheck can expedite the process, this seems like an exaggeration to me. Perhaps legal citations that have been correctly entered will take no longer than 15 seconds. If a volume number is entered incorrectly, BriefCheck won't suggest a correction.

Garner does acknowledge that it may take "one full day" to check the legal and fact citations in a brief. Keep that estimate in mind the next time an associate gives you an impossible deadline!