Expert Analysis

• More Than Drugs At Stake In High Court's 'Blind Mule' Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's eventual decision in Diaz v. U.S., evaluating whether expert witnesses may testify that most defendants caught with drugs at the border know they are transporting drugs, could have implications for prosecuting everything from complex financial crimes to gun and drug cases, says Kenneth Notter at MoloLamken.

• Why Fla. High Court Adopting Apex Doctrine Is Monumental

  

  The Florida Supreme Court recently solidified the apex doctrine in the Sunshine State, an important development that extends the scope of the doctrine in the state to include both corporate and government officials, and formalizes the requirements for a high-level corporate official to challenge a request for a deposition, says Laura Renstrom at Holland & Knight.

• A Refresher On Witness Testimony In 3 Key Settings

  

  The recent controversy over congressional testimony from university presidents about antisemitism on campus serves as a reminder to attorneys about what to emphasize and avoid when preparing witnesses to testify before Congress, and how this venue differs from grand jury and trial proceedings, say Jack Sharman and Tyler Yarbrough at Lightfoot Franklin.

• A Post-Mortem Analysis Of Stroock's Demise

  

  After the dissolution of 147-year-old firm Stroock late last year shook up the legal world, a post-mortem analysis of the data reveals a long list of warning signs preceding the firm’s collapse — and provides some insight into how other firms might avoid the same disastrous fate, says Craig Savitzky at Leopard Solutions.

• Preparing For DOJ's Data Analytics Push In FCPA Cases

  

  After the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent announcement that it will leverage data analytics in Foreign Corrupt Practice Act investigations and prosecutions, companies will need to develop a compliance strategy that likewise implements data analytics to get ahead of enforcement risks, say attorneys at Cozen O'Connor.

• Considering The Logical Extremes Of Your Legal Argument

  

  Recent oral arguments in the federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump highlighted the age-old technique of extending an argument to its logical limit — a principle that is still important for attorneys to consider in preparing their cases, says Reuben Guttman at Guttman Buschner.

• Storytelling Strategies To Defuse Courtroom Conspiracies

  

  Misinformation continues to proliferate in all sectors of society, including in the courtroom, as jurors try to fill in the gaps of incomplete trial narratives — underscoring the need for attorneys to tell a complete, consistent and credible story before and during trial, says David Metz at IMS Legal Strategies.

• Lessons From Rare Post-Verdict Healthcare Fraud Acquittal

  

  A Maryland federal court recently overturned a jury verdict that found a doctor guilty of healthcare fraud related to billing levels for COVID-19 tests, providing defense attorneys with potential strategies for obtaining acquittals in similar prosecutions, says attorney Andrew Feldman.

• Calif. Disclosure Update Adds To Employer Trial Prep Burden

  

  Though California’s recently updated litigation disclosure procedures may streamline some aspects of employment suits filed in the state, plaintiffs' new ability to demand a wider range of information on a tighter timeline will burden companies with the need to invest more resources into investigating cases much earlier in the process, says Jeffrey Horton Thomas at Fox Rothschild.

• EDNY Ruling Charts 99 Problems In Rap Lyric Admissibility

  

  A New York federal court’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Jordan powerfully captures courts’ increasing skepticism about the admissibility of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials, particularly at a time when artists face economic incentives to embrace fictional, hyperbolic narratives, say attorneys at Sher Tremonte.

• 3 Principles For Minimizing The Risk Of A Nuclear Verdict

  

  In one of the latest examples of so-called nuclear verdicts, a single plaintiff was awarded $2.25 billion in a jury trial against Monsanto — revealing the need for defense attorneys to prioritize trust, connection and simplicity when communicating with modern juries, say Jenny Hergenrother and Mia Falzarano at Alston & Bird.

• Series

  Coaching High School Wrestling Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Coaching my son’s high school wrestling team has been great fun, but it’s also demonstrated how a legal career can benefit from certain experiences, such as embracing the unknown, studying the rules and engaging with new people, says Richard Davis at Maynard Nexsen.

• Takeaways From 9th Circ. Nix Of Ex-GOP Rep.'s Conviction

  

  The Ninth Circuit recently reversed the conviction of former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., for lying to the FBI, showing that the court will rein in aggressive attempts by the government to expand the reach of criminal prosecutions — and deepening a circuit split on an important venue issue, say attorneys at Skadden.

• SG's Office Is Case Study To Help Close Legal Gender Gap

  

  As women continue to be underrepresented in the upper echelons of the legal profession, law firms could learn from the example set by the Office of the Solicitor General, where culture and workplace policies have helped foster greater gender equality, say attorneys at Ocean Tomo.

• A Closer Look At Novel Jury Instruction In Forex Rigging Case

  

  After the recent commodities fraud conviction of a U.K.-based hedge fund executive in U.S. v. Phillips, post-trial briefing has focused on whether the New York federal court’s jury instruction incorrectly defined the requisite level of intent, which should inform defense counsel in future open market manipulation cases, say attorneys at Lankler Siffert.