Blog

You have suffered significant injuries because of an accident, and you believe you have a strong personal injury case. You start the proceedings for filing a lawsuit to claim compensation, but, before your case has a chance to move off the ground, you find out that the defense has made a motion to dismiss your case, instead of answering your allegations. Motion to Dismiss Your Case, even before it Starts You believe you have suffered significant injuries after a car accident because of someone else's carelessness. You hire an attorney to submit a lawsuit on your behalf. Your attorney goes ahead, files the required papers, and starts the lawsuit. You now expect everything to go smoothly, and you are confident of being successful, because you believe that your case is formidable and resolute. However, you get a call from your attorney and he tells you that things are not going well. He informs you that the defense rather than answering your allegations have turned around and made a request to dismiss your case, before anything got off the ground. You are shocked and want to know how they can possibly do that, since they do not yet know the facts or details of the case? How can they possible ask the court to dismiss a case where they do not know any of its details? Well, it is possible, and it is called a preemptive strategy, where the defense will try to get your case dismissed, before you even have the chance to reach the discovery phase of your lawsuit. For doing this, the defense will have to toss in legal arguments and reasoning, as to why your case does not have merit. They will oftentimes have to get experts to support their claim that your case does not have merit and does not belong in the court system. The Judge can Dismiss Your Case If the judge agrees with the defense's arguments, then your case is out, and your case will be over even before any traction was gained. On the other hand, there is also the possibility of the judge turning around and saying that the arguments put forward by the defense are a bit premature. The judge may determine that this is a factual dispute that ultimately needs to be resolved by a jury, rather than an issue of law for the court to decide. In such instance, the court will allow the case to proceed forward. Stranger Things have Occurred However, do not be surprised, if your attorney calls you and says that the defense has made a motion to dismiss your case, even before serving any answers to your complaint. Hence, even if you believe that you have suffered injuries because of somebody's negligence of carelessness, and you feel your case is terrific, there is a possibility of your case being dismissed, even before it starts, provided the defense is able to put forward valid arguments for the dismissal. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

During closing arguments, can a lawyer turn around in front of the jury, and call the opposing lawyer, a liar? A Lawyer cannot Call the Opposing Lawyer a Liar The plaintiff's lawyer says its black, the defense will say white, one side says yes and the opposing side says no. For, everything claimed by the plaintiff, the defense would say just the opposite. Is the defense lying or being untruthful? Is the defense lawyer shading the truth? When the plaintiff's lawyer obtains the opportunity to address the jury with his closing remarks at the end of the trial, can he tell the jurors that the defense attorney is a liar. The answer is no. A lawyer cannot call the other lawyer a liar in his closing remarks. Point Out the Inconsistencies and Untruths However, there may be instances where the people who are being sued have said things that are contradictory compared to what they have stated earlier, or said untruthful things. The defense may also have tried to hide the truth. The plaintiff's lawyer can show all such contradictions to the jury. He can show all this without actually coming out and saying that the defense was lying. The plaintiff's lawyer can reveal all the inconsistencies of the defense to the jury, but he cannot call the defense lawyer a liar or say that he has been lying throughout the case. The jurors are smart enough to recognize if there are inconsistencies. If there were untruths, the lawyer would have brought that out during the course of the trial. The lawyer will have the opportunity in his closing remarks, to explain to the jury how the defense has shaded the truth, by showing all the inconsistencies in their statements. Too Bold; Going too Far The lawyer can even tell the jury that they cannot possibly believe the defense; however, he cannot declare outright that the defense lawyer is a liar or that he has been lying to the jury throughout the case. The jury is smart, they would have observed the inconsistencies, and will actually know that the defense is lying, and there is no necessity for lawyer to say this. The lawyers should allow the jury to come to that conclusion on their own. The lawyer simply has to highlight the many inconsistencies in not only what the defense is saying but also about the things that their attorney has stated. The goal of the plaintiff's lawyer should not be to focus on the defense's lawyer or his antics during the course of the trial, but rather to show the jury that there have been inconsistencies, there have been untruths, and there have been shading of the truths. Therefore, because of all this, the lawyer can tell the jury that they cannot possibly believe the defense's witnesses. The lawyer can also tell the jury about his witnesses, the statements they have made are consistent, and that they have credibility. This will show the clear differences between the witnesses of both sides. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

You have been involved in a significant car accident and you get in touch with the insurance company of the careless driver. The company wants to settle the case with you, but before that, they want you to sign a document called a release. Should you ever sign such a document, before you have spoken to your attorney? The insurance company of the careless driver has ongoing discussions, and finally they decide to make you an offer. You think the offer is quite reasonable, but before they can send you the check, they want you to sign a document called a general release. This document, says that you can never come back and bring a lawsuit against their client. Now, do you go ahead and sign this immediately, so that they can send you the check? Or, would it better to have the document reviewed by your attorney, who handles accident cases on a daily basis. The Insurance Company will make a Small Offer The insurance company, most likely is not going to be giving you full value for what your injuries are truly worth. Insurance companies do this because they know you do not have experience valuing this type of injury. They know you do not have experience negotiating with the insurance company. Hence, unless you are totally confident and have years of experience doing this, you may be at a significant disadvantage to sign that release in expectation of obtaining that settlement check right away. An Experienced Accident Attorney can Provide the Right Advice On the other hand, an attorney who handles these types of cases everyday is going to know exactly what your injuries are, he is going to know what the insurance coverage is, he is going to have an ongoing discussion with the insurance company, and he will be able to document and support all the problems you are having now. Your lawyer will also know the type of health problems you are likely to have in the future. You really do not know what your health problems are going to be in the future, unless you have spoken to medical experts. If you need further surgery or rehabilitation in the future, who is going to pay for it? You should realize that when you sign that general release document you will end your ability, and you will cut off all of your rights to after and sue the person who is responsible for causing the accident. Hence, when you sign the release, you are giving up all of your rights and you cannot initiate a lawsuit in the future against the careless person. Therefore, it is pivotal to consult with your lawyer first, as he knows what your injuries are worth, and whether the settlement offer is fair and equitable. Unless you do this, you might end up with an amount that is pitiful and does not cover your costs, and you will not be able to sue the driver in the future. And you will realize you just made a colossal mistake. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

Your personal injury case has gone to trial and the judge has declared a mistrial. How soon afterwards will your case be retried? Reasons for Declaring a Mistrial The answer is that it depends. Here is an example. A lawyer is representing a person in a personal injury case. The person is staying at a resort and he has been injured in a sledding accident. The lawyer keeps referring to the sled that his client was on, as a pie pan or a pie dish, because the sled was nothing more than a saucer about thirty inches in diameter that was made by that person in their garage. The judge had a legal reason for not allowing the lawyer to refer to the sled as a pie pan. However, the lawyer kept referring to the sled as a pie pan, in front of the jury. The lawyer wanted to convey to the jury and make them realize that the sled was a child's toy, which his adult client was riding when he went down the hill, as the accident occurred, and suffered injuries from. Every time the lawyer referred to the sled as a pie pan, the defense attorney objected, the judge sustained the objection, and specifically told the lawyer not to use the term. However, the lawyer continued to do it, in his client's interests. The lawyer knew that there was the possibility of the judge declaring a mistrial when he called the sled, a pie pan, the fourth or fifth time. However, the lawyer felt he had to keep doing it, in order to convey to the jury that what his client was riding was clearly inappropriate for an adult. In such a situation, if the judge declared a mistrial, he would have yelled at the lawyer or have admonished that attorney in a clear tone. However, the lawyer has an obligation to his client, to represent him as fully and properly as the lawyer can, without overstepping the bounds of what is proper. In this case, the lawyer believed that he was not overstepping the bounds, and he believed the law was on his side. If the judge declares a mistrial, in all likelihood, he would dismiss that jury. The two attorneys would then have to go back to the jury selection process, and begin choosing a fresh jury, all over again. In all likelihood, this would be done on the very same day that the mistrial was declared. When will the Retrial Take Place However, there are instances where the judge can have the attorneys come back a day, a week, or even months later because there might be other legal issues that might have to be resolved before the new trial can start all over again. Hence, there is no dictating for sure when the case will be retried. It will depend on how monumental the case is, and whether there are legal issues pending that need to be resolved, before starting another trial. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

If you can no longer have sex because of the personal accident injuries, you have suffered, due to doctor's carelessness; you can claim compensation, by filing a personal injury lawsuit. However, how does one actually prove this during the course of the lawsuit? How to Show You are Unable to have Sex with Your Spouse This question comes up many times. The client will tell his lawyer that as part of the injuries he has suffered, he no longer has the ability to engage in sexual intercourse, and how can he prove that. This can be done in a number of ways, through your medical records. During the course of time, you are recuperating and under care of a doctor, you would have told him about the specific complaints and the problems you were having. You are also likely to tell him about the things you can no longer do. Many patients do not like to talk about this topic, even with their doctors. However, the reality is, this is the key way, your lawyer will be able to show in court that you are more likely right than wrong, and your claim is actually true. Questions the Defense is Likely to Ask at the Deposition When you file a lawsuit against a doctor, claiming that he has violated the basic standards of medical care, your lawyer will have to obtain all your medical records to confirm the claim that there were violations of basic standards of care, and these violations caused your particular injuries. On the other hand, the lawyers of the hospital or doctors whom you bring the case against, will be doing the same investigation, it will be just many months later. They will also look into your medical records to find out: What complains did you have What health problems did you have What did you tell the doctor What did the doctor's examination show Is there a physical reason why you no longer can engage in sexual relationships with your spouse Based upon your medical records, the defense will form an opinion or conclude in their own minds whether you are able to engage in sexual activity. Additionally, during the course of your lawsuit, the defense will have the ability to question you during the deposition, about what you can and can no longer do. The deposition is a question and answer session held under oath, well before the trial. At this session, the defense lawyers will have the ability to ask you questions about the injuries you have suffered and what are the things you are unable to do or have difficulty doing because of those injuries. This is how you show that you are unable to have sexual relations with your spouse. The defense cannot place a hidden camera (or perhaps not hidden) in your bedroom to see if you are able to have sex or not. It does not happen that way, instead, they rely on your testimony, and the doctor's information in your medical records, to determine whether, what you are claiming is in fact true. You also do not have to record you and your wife in bed failing to have intimacy for anyone to believe you. That is not necessary. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

The Ability to Choose a Venue You are contemplating invoking a lawsuit for an accident case, medical malpractice, or wrongful death. Did you know that sometimes you might have the ability to choose which court you want to bring your lawsuit in the state of New York? This is true, but in some instances, you may not have this ability to choose. This involves state court matters which is distinguished from federal court. For instance, you received medical care in New York, in Long Island for instance. You live in Nassau County though, and all the treatment happened in Nassau County. In such instance, if you happen to sue a doctor or hospital in Nassau County, then in all likelihood you will not have the opportunity to choose where you want your case to be heard, and you will have to issue the lawsuit in Nassau County. However, for example, if you are living in Nassau County and you are receiving your medical treatment in Brooklyn, which is in Kings County. If the doctors there have violated the basic standards of care, and you are contemplating initiating a lawsuit for an injury claim, you could file a lawsuit in Kings County, as opposed to submitting the lawsuit in Nassau County. Why is it Strategically Important? The question is why anybody would want to do that? Well, the venue is supposed to be a dirty secret that many people do not talk about. The jury, who is going to be sitting and listening to your particular matter, will be made up of people living in those counties. Now, in every county, you have different jury populations. There may be minorities who are more represented in certain counties than in others. This was discussed in the 1990s movie A Time to Kill by Kevin Spacey. A common thinking amongst lawyers in New York is that minorities tend to do better for injured victims, in terms of compensating them. This is not a very politically correct thing to talk about openly but some people believe politically correctness should be outlawed anyhow. However, there are strategic reasons why an attorney will choose one county over the other. Determining the Right County Now, if you have the opportunity to pick which county your case is going to be heard, and you choose the wrong county, then the attorneys representing the people, whom you are suing, will raise the issue of bringing the lawsuit up in the wrong county. The plaintiff's lawyer will then have to explain to the court why the case was filed in this county, and the judge will have to make a ruling about whether or not they are correct. If the judge finds that it is the wrong county, and the reasons provided by the attorney are not valid, then the case will be transferred to the right county. Hence, even though you have the ability to choose in certain instances, the venue where your case should be heard, you should be able to provide the court valid reasons for doing the same. It might be a strategic move, but the judge will know this, and unless you provide proper reasons, your case will be transferred back to the right county.

If your case goes to trial, who actually decides, whether your case is going to be heard by a judge or by a jury? It could be an accident case, wrongful death case, or medical malpractice case, how do you decide whether a judge or jury is going to hear your case? The Type of Personal Injury Case It will depend on the type of case you have, and when the defense has clearly acknowledged and agreed that, they are responsible for the happening of your injuries. However, the defense agreeing to the wrongdoing is extremely rare. The defense almost never says that they acknowledge their mistake and are willing to go ahead to enable the court to decide what the injuries are worth. However, if this were to happen, you would like to have a jury of your peers, deciding what the value of your injuries are worth. This would mean, six people of the community will come and sit in judgment, and will listen to doctors, and other testimonies about what happened to you and the way the injuries have affected your life. In a case where there is simply an issue of law, when the judge has to make a determination, based on the facts that are presented, in such an instance, you would want the judge to make that decision. The judge will listen to whatever testimony is necessary, and then come upon a conclusion based upon what the law says on the matter. In every car accident case, the plaintiff will claim that somebody was careless, and the other driver will turn around and refute the allegation. In every medical malpractice case, there is a clear dispute, where the plaintiff will claim that the doctor has violated the basic standards of medical care. On the other hand, the doctor and his attorney will say that there was no deviation from the standards of medical care. The Law and the Truth This same thing happens in every type of personal injury case or civil litigation, where somebody has suffered injury or untimely death. There is always a clear factual dispute. In such a situation, a jury is called upon to decide, who is more likely right than wrong. The jury has to determine who is telling the truth, and who is not telling the truth. Once the jury concludes about who is more likely right than wrong, then they can resolve those factual disputes about whom they believe and who they do not believe. Then the judge will give them the law to apply, to the facts that they have just determined. The Value of the Case Another factor that could determine the hearing of the case by a judge or jury is the value of the case or the amount of alleged damages. For instance, in many states, if the damages are less than $50,000 the plaintiff cannot request a trial by jury, and a judge will usually preside over the case. Hence, there is a threshold amount for the case to qualify you for a jury trial.

Can You Switch Trial Judges Your personal injury case has come up for trial, and it is assigned to a particular trial judge. Now if you do not like this particular judge, can you go ahead and switch trial judges? The answer is no. You will not be able to change the judge just because you do not like him, or just because he has made rulings against you. However, there are very limited instances where you can have a particular trial judge removed from the case. This means, you have to ask the judge to recuse himself, or excuse himself from trying that particular case. However, in order to do that, you should have a poignant and concrete reason. The Judge has a Connection with the Defendant For instance, it is a medical malpractice case and you are suing a doctor for violating the basic standards of medical care, and you have suffered significant injuries because of that violation. In this scenario, this judge who is assigned to your case happens to be a patient of this doctor you are suing. Now you will have to ask the judge to excuse himself from the trial. Your lawyer will tell the judge, "Your honor, we have learnt that you are in fact a patient of this doctor we are suing, and therefore we are asking you to recuse yourself". The judge will then give both the lawyers the opportunity to put forward their arguments. After hearing both sides, the judge will have to make a decision about excusing himself from this case or not, because there was some connection with the doctor. The lawyer might have claimed that because of this connection, it is possible for the judge to favor the doctor. If the judge accepts this possibility, he might recuse himself from the case. There should be a Valid Reason for Asking to Switch Judges There might be other instances where the connection is not so obvious, and the judge might not accept any arguments and will not excuse himself from the case. Hence, just because you do not like the judge, or you do not like the judge's rulings of his prior cases or of your present case, it does not mean you can ask the particular judge to excuse himself and bring in a new judge. Unless there is a valid reason and there is a prolific argument that shows a strong connection of the judge with either of the two parties, the judge cannot be switched. Secondly, it is the judge who is assigned to your case, who will take the decision to recuse himself or not. This means, unless the judge feels he is going to be biased to any one of the parties of the case, he is not going to excuse himself. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

In your car accident case, the insurance company does not want to pay you, what you think your case is worth. What is the likelihood that they are going to increase their settlement offer as your case progresses towards trial? There is Various Possibilities when You can Reject Settlement Offer The answer is that they might, but then again they might not in regards to the title above. Every case is individual and unique. Let us say, the defense actually makes you an offer to settle the case, and you decide for whatever reason that the money they are offering is not sufficient. You have the expectation that you think that as the case progresses to trial, before it actually goes to trial, at some point they are going to increase the offer and negotiate a settlement. Not any Higher Can such a thing happen? The answer is yes, it can happen. However, there is a flipside to this coin. One of the directions this track could take is that the defense might actually withdraw their offer. The defense might turn around and say this is our final offer and no other amount that we propose in the future will be higher than this one sitting right in front of you now. In such an instance, you may have no choice but to go ahead with the trial if you believe that monetary figure does not fairly represent the painful and financial setbacks you have endured. Your attorney and you will have to convince the jury to provide you with compensation that correlates to your costs (medical and otherwise) and suffering, and await their verdict. Another scenario that could happen is that the defense can reduce their offer. Hence, when they hear you have rejected their offer, and the case is progressing to trial, they can say that they have reassessed the matter, and found that they had offered too much. Now they make you an offer that is less than their original offer. In such an instance, you will have to decide whether the reduced amount is acceptable or whether you would like to go to trial and accept the jury's verdict. It appears there are many different directions this process can take, and you should not necessarily expect that since you turned down their initial offer, they are going to increase the amount. This is true during the negotiation process as well. You might think that if you keep rejecting offers during the negotiation, the defense is going to keep increasing their settlement amount as your case nears trial. You may think that they will start to believe that you know more than them and that your pain & suffering was that severe. This may not be so at any particular point in the negotiations process. Then you might be stuck in a predicament of being left with no choice but to go ahead with the trial and hope for a favorable jury verdict and there is not any unforeseen circumstances that arise. Listen to the Advice to an Acute & Standout Attorney Rejecting a settlement offer should not be based on a gamble or based on the expectation that the defense will keep increasing the amount before the trial commences. Therefore, it is critical to have a marvelous and sharp accident lawyer, who knows the true value of your case, he is confident of proving your case in court, and thinks he can convince the jury to award you with a sizeable compensation. So basically, whenever any settlement offer is made, your lawyer will discuss the matter with you, and advise you whether it is wise to accept the offer or not. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

Past pain and suffering relates to the injury you suffer due to another person's carelessness or wrongdoing. The duration of the past pain and suffering is from the time of the incident up to the time of the trial. When you get to trial, a gap of usually a few years has passed, from the time the incident occurred up to the time of trial. You will be asking the jury to make an award of compensation to you for the pain and suffering that you endured for the years from the time of the event to the time leading up to the trial. Future Pain and Suffering This obviously leads to the question, what happens in the future, if the victim has not fully recovered. In such a case, the jury will be asked to make an award also for future pain and suffering. When your lawyer presents to the jury what could happen to you in future, he will have to bring in medical experts to discuss what could happen to you from that point forward during trial and into the foreseeable future. Factors Determining Amount of Future Pain and Suffering Nobody has a crystal ball to look into the future, but your lawyer will ask the doctor to make assumptions: Based upon your past injuries Based upon your course of treatment Based upon what your health problems are today Whether you are going to need further treatment What type of medical care you are going to need to take care of your particular problem Whether you are going to need further surgeries in the future Whether you are going to suffer from disabilities as a result of the wrongdoing or carelessness that occurred The Jury Decides a Compensatory Amount After considering all these points, the jury will then have enough evidence to make a decision for deciding on an award that would compensate you fairly for your past and future pain and suffering. This would include from the time of the incident to the date of the trial, and from the time of trial and into the future, for the suffering you are expected to endure. Compensation for past and future pain and suffering will apply to accident cases, medical malpractice cases, and even wrongful death cases. The plaintiff lawyer has to call doctors and other medical professionals as expert witnesses to present to the jury what the victim has suffered, and what he is likely to suffer in the future. The defense might bring in their own medical experts to disprove these claims or to present to the jury that the pain and suffering is not as much as what the plaintiff's witnesses are presenting. It is always difficult to put a dollar amount to pain and suffering, but there are certain guidelines that will help the jury calculate a fair compensatory amount. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

What are Requests to Charge in a Personal Injury Case At the end of the trial, before giving closing remarks, the lawyer has to give the judge a list of various areas of law, based on which, he wants the judge to give instructions to the jury. This is called requests to charge. This list has to be provided by both lawyers to the judge, and the judge will go through these lists and decide what should be instructed to the jury. The set of instructions given by the lawyers will be different. The defense attorney will have a set of instructions that he would want the judge to tell the jury, while the plaintiff's lawyer will have a list of instructions that will be favorable to his client. Holding a Charge Conference After requests to charge have been submitted to the judge, there is a charge conference. This conference is held in the private chambers of the judge with the court stenographer present. At this conference, the judge will go through the lists and hear arguments from the attorneys about why he should or should not give specific instructions as asked in the requests. During the conference, the judge will ask each attorney why he wants the particular charge given, and the concerned attorney will have to give an explanation. The opposing attorney will also get an opportunity to give his response, as to why that particular instruction or that particular area of law should not be given. After listening to both attorneys, the judge will then have to make a decision about whether the instruction should be given to the jury or not. In this manner, the judge will go through every single request made, and make his decision. The judge will go through the list of the plaintiff's lawyer first, and of the defense second. At the end, the judge will say that he has all the requests to charge, and the judge might even include some of his own, that he feels are important to instruct the jury. Why is it done? Requests to charge and having a charge conference is done because of the key reason that before the lawyers give their closing remarks, they are fully aware of the instructions that the judge is giving to the jury about what the law is regarding this particular case. This is critical because the attorneys will not get a chance to comment about some of the laws and some of the instructions that the judge is going to be giving to the jury. For instance, the lawyers can tell the jury that they are going to hear from the judge specific instructions about what it means if a witness had lied, or they had determined that a witness had lied. Hence, when the judge gives the instructions, the jury will be tuned to it and they will be giving particular attention to what the lawyer had indicated in his closing argument.

The Procedure for Presenting Something in Evidence At trial before a lawyer offers something into evidence, he may want to show that piece of evidence to a witness. This piece of evidence could be a document or an object; however, the lawyer cannot simply walk up to the witness and ask him to have a look. The lawyer has to firstly indicate what the piece of evidence is, and tell the court reporter what it is. This is done because if the case every goes to appeal, the incident of the lawyer asking the witness to look at a particular thing, will be recorded, and the judges presiding over the appeal will know about it. For instance, the lawyer could say, "Your honor, I would like to mark this exhibit as plaintiff #1 for identification". After the judge has given the instructions for the exhibit to be marked, the lawyer will further question the witness about the document or object that has been shown to him. The lawyer will further ask question like: Can you tell the court what this is please? Have you used this device before? Can you tell the court how this device works? Do you use this device every day? The lawyer will then say he wants to offer this device plaintiff #1 for identification into evidence. The judge will then ask the defense if he has any objections to offering the device into evidence. If the defense has no objections, it will automatically be admitted into evidence. If there are objections, then defense will have to explain to the judge what their legal objections are. The judge will then make a ruling about whether he agrees or disagrees with the objection. Once the device is admitted into evidence, the lawyer can then show the device to the jury as well. Why is it Done? The bottom line is when the lawyer asks the judge to mark something for identification; it is in anticipation of asking the witness certain questions about the piece of evidence. Once the lawyer has sufficient information from the witness about the particular object, and his familiarity with it, then the lawyer will be able to offer the object or document into evidence. The judge will then have to rule whether he is going to allow the particular object or document into evidence, after asking the defense if they have any objections. In a personal injury case, evidence is introduced all the time, and lawyers will ask the judge to mark the evidence for identification. A particular process is followed so that it is all properly recorded and there is no confusion about what was introduced as evidence. Even if the case goes into appeal, all the incidences that occurred regarding submission of evidence will be available to the judges in the appellate court. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.