Evidence and the Jury

David Serna, an attorney-at-law, discusses various matters and issues on litigation, prosecution, and defense. Most of his readers consist of both newly-minted and experienced lawyers. Today, he discusses the importance of leaving an impact on the jury.

Jurors will not remember what they do not understand. The narrative of the case and the evidence supporting such narrative must be clear to them. Ideally, the narrative must be detailed but, at the same time, concise. David Serna tells attorneys that the advantage of being concise and detailed with the facts desired to be established is that the theory of the case becomes easier for the jury to recall during the deliberations.

Each piece of evidence must have a purpose. The job of the lawyer is to establish the usefulness of the evidence. For instance, there are cases where drug, blood, or field sobriety tests give weight to the theory of the case. In effect, the version of the narrative becomes more convincing to the jury.

In obtaining evidence that supports the theory of the case, lawyers must watch out for hearsay evidence as such is inadmissible, even if seemingly relevant. However, there are a few exceptions to hearsay evidence, such as present sense impressions, excited utterances, declarations of present state of mind, prior inconsistent statements, business records exception, a dying declaration, a declaration against interest, forfeiture by wrongdoing, and prior testimony. It would be very useful for lawyers to utilize these exceptions.

David Serna tells attorneys that when showing the evidence to a witness, they must ensure that each member of the jury likewise sees the evidence. It is, however, not enough that the evidence has been shown. Lawyers must remember to ask the witness to discuss the relevance of such evidence.

Follow blogs by David Serna, attorney-at-law, for more tips and tactics on effective litigation.