How to Win Your Case: A Psychiatrist Uses Famous Cases as Examples of How to Succeed in Litigation

SWEARING IN

Indeed, I, Dr. Curtis, swear to tell you the truth. I do so because I need your trust. After all, I am going to tell you how to prevail in your case.

Could you imagine the mess I could create by disclosing confidential information from my patients! I am restricted, therefore, to using examples from my recollections of famous cases in the news. My memories have been refreshed by searching Google and YouTube.

In writing this book, I soon discovered an elephant in the room that could not be avoided – cases of the president, Donald Trump. His cases have been mentioned in passing.

I would like to begin, however, with a central principle for all litigation – that is, to defend against the defense.

DEFEND AGAINST THE DEFENSE

If you file a case, you may think you are bringing trouble and heat to the other side. Indeed, the other side will incur costs and losses, and perhaps some worry and strain. However, the brunt of the heat falls on you. This occurs when the other side attacks your credibility, knowing that if you cannot be believed as a witness, you cannot prevail in your case. Thus, when you file a case, you are putting the heat on yourself – putting yourself out there to be attacked by the other side – the defense.

Thus, in order to win your case, you must defend against the defense.

In the Oj Simpson murder case, it appeared that the prosecution had the best evidence possible – not only the victim’s blood right there on the porch, but also the perpetrator’s blood (DNA). The perpetrator had to go past the fence gate to leave the property. Guess what? On the fence, not just victim’s blood, but also perpetrator’s blood. He has to drive away from the scene. On his steering wheel and elsewhere in his car, victim’s blood plus perpetrator’s blood. On his property, there is a glove with a cut on the finger of the glove that exactly matches the cut on the finger of the perpetrator. On the glove, victim’s blood plus perpetrator’s blood. He has to change clothes before leaving for the airport. He leaves a sock lying on his bedroom floor. On it, the victim’s blood plus perpetrator’s blood.

In addition to this perfect blood evidence, there is also a history of domestic violence, a perfect timeline –- and perhaps a precipitating event at some type of school gathering earlier that evening.

So how much of this evidence was considered by the jury?

Answer – none.

Watch it the next time it comes on TV. One of the jurors, different ones on different programs, say the same thing. The jury called back to read again the testimony of the limousine driver – the first person to see OJ after the murders. Why him?

Because the jury did not consider any evidence from the LAPD. The LAPD witnesses were discredited.

No testimony is likely to be taken as factual from a discredited witness. So the jury weighed only the evidence from other witnesses and exhibits.

That’s what the defense against you wants to do to you – to discredit you as a witness. Then, no matter how good your case is, you cannot meet the burden of proof. So you lose.

Thus, you must defend against the defense.

Like in competitive sports, winning in cases depends largely not upon offense, but moreso upon defense. For instance, in basketball, the home team fans chant, Defense… Defense… To continue basketball as a metaphor, most cases are, slam dunk cases. The offense is unbeatable. Therefore the only way to win is by defense, in legal cases, to defend against the defense.

In other words, the defense wants to discredit the key witness from meeting the burden of proof.

Guess who is the key witness in your case!

Let’s look at another slam dunk case.

In the Casey Anthony murder trial of her toddler, Caylee Anthony, there was only one witness for the defense to discredit, that witness being Casey’s father, George Anthony. This would be obvious according to simple logic as follows: There had been no intruder. The grandmother, Cindy Anthony, was obviously not a suspect; after all, it was Cindy who had reported her missing granddaughter because of the smell of a dead body in the trunk of Casey’s car. With Cindy ruled out, this left only Casey and George. Thus, the only way to defend Casey was to blame George. He could be the only possible culprit or conspirator aside from Casey in the disappearance of Caylee.

Since accident could not be ruled out in the manner of death, then George could be implicated in helping Casey cover over an accident such as a drowning in an unattended swimming pool, a common occurrence in South Florida.

If you were a juror, would you believe George’s testimony that he only brought flowers to a local widow to appease her grief? Or would you believe the testimony by the widow that he brought her flowers to have sex with her? Then would you believe the local widow’s testimony also that George