글 목록

프로필

내 사진
서울 서초구 반포대로 14길 30, 센추리 412호. TEL: 010-6350-1799 이메일:jawala.lee@gmail.com. Attorney at Law, Tax, Patent. Lee,Jae Wook is a member of the Korean Bar Association and Illinois Bar Association. Licensed to practice in KOREA and U.S.A., Illinois. Attorney Lee has worked since 1997.3. as a prominent Attorney in the legal service field including tax, law, patent, immigration, transaction across the border. You can find more at http://taxnlaw.co.kr

2013년 7월 8일 월요일

Closing arguments begin at IKEA monkey trial

 PLAY VIDEO
WATCH: Closing arguments begin at IKEA monkey trial. Carey Marsden reports. 
OSHAWA, Ont. – The lawyer for a woman who calls herself the Ikea monkey’s “mom” says laws about wild animals do not apply in this case because it’s clear the monkey was a domesticated pet – he was found wearing a diaper and a coat.
Yasmin Nakhuda, a Toronto real estate lawyer, is suing Story Book Farm Primate Sanctuary in Sunderland, Ont., where Darwin the monkey has been held since he was found wandering an Ikea parking lot.
In his closing arguments at the trial Tuesday, her lawyer, Ted Charney, said the law that applies here is the city of Toronto’s bylaw, and a supervisor from Toronto animal services has testified he had no power to detain the monkey once its owner came to claim it.
Charney’s co-counsel said that Nakhuda did sign a form at animal services surrendering her ownership of Darwin, but the bylaw officers didn’t clearly explain its purpose and she thought she was surrendering the monkey just so they could perform public health tests.
There is so little case law in Canada on wild animals and property law that one of the few cases that lawyers on either side were able to dig up is from almost 100 years ago.
One antiquated case deals with a fox breeder suing a man who shot a fox that, unbeknownst to the breeder, had escaped and ran away. In that case the man who shot the fox couldn’t have been expected to know he belonged to someone, Charney argued, and that’s one way in which this case differs.
“Darwin didn’t leave Ms. Nakhuda and go wandering up to Sunderland and one day show up on Ms. Delaney’s farm,” he said. “And Darwin didn’t look like just any other monkey. He was in a diaper and a coat. It was clear that somebody owned him.”
Closing arguments from the lawyer for the sanctuary are set to be heard Tuesday afternoon. Court heard in the morning from sanctuary owner Sherri Delaney, who said she threatened to report Nakhuda to the law society.
Tensions have run high in the case since December when the Japanese macaque escaped from Nakhuda’s car and was picked up by Toronto animal services.
Delaney has testified that supporters of Nakhuda have threatened to kill her and burn the sanctuary down.
Under cross-examination today by Charney, Delaney admitted that she threatened to report Nakhuda to the Law Society of Upper Canada because she believes Nakhuda didn’t tell the truth under oath.
When Nakhuda first launched her lawsuit shortly after the Ikea incident, the sanctuary alleged that Nakhuda, her husband and her two children had abused Darwin – allegations that were withdrawn on the first day of the trial last month.
Charney, suggested in court Tuesday that the allegations were only made in the first place to discredit his client in the media.
“Are you aware that within 24 hours of delivering your defence those allegations of abuse…were headlines across the country?” Charney asked Delaney.
“I think your law office leaked them,” she replied.
“You think my office leaked your allegations of abuse to the media?” Charney said, incredulously. Delaney replied that’s what she recalled.
Charney suggested that one incendiary allegation, that Darwin was hit with a wooden spoon, was based on a letter Nakhuda had written in which she said she sometimes “brandished” a wooden spoon to get the monkey’s attention when he was misbehaving.
“Because someone brandished a spoon they must be…beating an animal with it?” Charney said.
“I’m simply saying that a wooden spoon is only a spoon unless someone has been meant to fear it,” Delaney replied.
The exchange came at the end of a tense cross-examination, which began with a drawn out exchange between Delaney and Charney in which they argued over whether she “adopted” Darwin or if he was “signed over” to her.
Delaney has testified that legally she is Darwin’s owner now as Nakhuda signed a form surrendering her ownership.

LIVE

  • Getting late...need to start filing story! Closing argument continues...but I 'm out...
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20135:25 am
  • Toyne: it doesn't matter what Darwin was wearing...what his characteristics were. Darwin is a wild animal because he was born a Monkey
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20134:45 am
  • Toyne begins closing argument: the 2nd Darwin got out if the car...Ms.Nakhuda no longer owned him
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20134:39 am
  • Charney: "that's deception. That's a tainted transaction" when TAS got Nakhuda to sign the form
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20134:26 am
  • Charney: there is substantial evidence here, she was pressured into signing this form
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20134:16 am
  • Her form stated surrender/sign over...whereas online form states surrender/custody ownership
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20133:45 am
  • Charney says form Nakhuda signed was not sufficient.
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20133:45 am
  • And we're back!
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20133:39 am
  • Well that was quickl Lunch break requested during Charney's closing argument...
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20132:40 am
  • "Surrender"..that it was there to mean they could do invasive testing and put him for pending results
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20132:21 am
  • "He was domesticated. He was a pet" #ikeamonkey
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20132:16 am
  • Wild animal vs domestic...Charney suggests Darwin would fall under domestic, "you've heard much evidence about bond...
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 20132:16 am
  • On break for 1hr before closing arguments
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 201312:21 am
  • Cross examination was like a sparring match between Delaney and lawyer Charney!
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 201312:21 am
  • Re: allegations of abuse...did you appreciate when you delivered your defence it would hit the media?
    By Carey Marsden via twitterJune 12, 201312:21 am
© The Canadian Press, 2013

COMMENTS

A Picture Is Worth…a Winning Case?

crash_117459024Photographs are an important tool in personal injury cases. Photos can have a great impact on the jury—they may even help jurors understand the issues more clearly than any words you can speak.
In personal injury cases, photos are used primarily to show accident scenes, damage to vehicles, and injuries to the person. Because they show so much detail, they substantiate testimony effectively and give variety to evidence. Photos can be used very successfully in closing arguments and can often go to the jury room during the jury’s deliberation.
Under California Evid C §250, a photo is considered a writing and must be authenticated before it can be received in evidence (Evid C §1401(a)), unless the opposing parties otherwise agree to its admission.
A photo may be authenticated by any of the following:
  1. a nonphotographer witness who can testify from personal knowledge that the photo correctly represents what it purports to depict;
  2. a professional photographer who took the photo and can show the ability to make fair and accurate legal photos and impartiality in the case; or
  3. an amateur photographer, e.g., a bystander who took a photo at the time of the incident.
Photos are common and effective way to show the scene of the accident (including any change in the scene), changed circumstances, accident reconstructions, damaged vehicles, and injured people.
But with every great piece of evidence is an equally strong objection. Objections to admission of a photo include:
  • Insufficient foundation. There’s no foundation if the photo wasn’t properly authenticated by a witness with personal knowledge of what’s depicted in it testifying that it’s a “correct representation.”
  • Prejudicial or unduly inflammatory. If the photograph is gruesome or shocking, the opposing party may object on the ground that its admission would be prejudicial.
  • Misleading. A photo can be misleading if, e.g., distance is distorted, height is exaggerated, or perspective is affected by the use of a wide-angle or telephoto lens.
  • Cumulative. The judge can exclude cumulative evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will consume an undue amount of time or create undue prejudice. Evid C §352.
  • Irrelevant. If liability and property damage aren’t in issue, the opposing party will object to a photo of a badly damaged car as irrelevant and thus inadmissible. But note that this photo might still be relevant to show the severity of impact in substantiation of the personal injuries claimed.
Using photos in a personal injury case can make your case to the jury effectively and persuasively, but don’t push it. Photos shouldn’t be overused, particularly to show the plaintiff’s injuries. You don’t want it to appear to the jury as if you’re trying to distract their attention from a weak case on the liability issue.
Learn about using photos as evidence in personal injury cases in CEB’s California Personal Injury Proof Book, chapter 15. And for everything you need to know about authenticating evidence and using evidence generally, turn to the book all the judges have—CEB’s Jefferson’s California Evidence Benchbook.
Related CEB blog posts:
© The Regents of the University of California, 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

On Demand
Effective Opening Statements and Closing Arguments As Taught By California's Top Trial Attorneys [2009]
3 hours MCLE Credit

Product # CP55387
Enrollment Fee: $259.00          FREE with adequate hours on CLE Passport
 

 ScheduleNeed To Enroll Multiple Attorneys?
On DemandSpeakers 
Recorded 9/09

Includes Streaming Video and MP3
 

 Top of Page

Program Description

Studies show that most jurors make their decision after opening statements, and few change their minds after hearing the evidence. Do you know how to make an effective opening statement? Do you know how to highlight significant testimony in a persuasive and winning closing argument?
This seminar will prepare you to deliver the most persuasive opening statements and closing arguments in civil cases. One of California's most popular and successful trial attorneys, Stan Jacobs, and an invited panel of the most well known and experienced trial attorneys in the business, will take you step by step through each process, addressing what to include, how to be convincing and what common mistakes to avoid.
You will learn how to:
  • Plan and present your opening statements and closing arguments
  • Avoid common mistakes
  • Improve your presentation and delivery
  • Relate your jury voir dire to your opening statement
  • Respond to your opponents statement or argument
Seminar Highlights
  • Introduction to opening statements
  • The relation voir dire to opening statements
  • Planning the opening statement
  • Presenting the opening statement
  • Common mistakes to avoid
  • Improving presentation and delivery
  • Introduction to closing arguments
  • Planning the argument
  • Presenting the closing argument
Assumes litigation experience and some to no trial experience.
 
 Top of Page

Be a Strong Closer: 3 Tips for Your Closing Argument

Lawyers who regularly try cases will tell you that persuasion is used in the opening and finesse is used in the closing. Actually, the finesse involved in refining and structuring the evidence in the closing argument also persuades the jury. Here are some practical tips to being a strong closer at trial.
Closing argument gives counsel the opportunity to
  • restate the primary issues of the trial,
  • summarize the evidence from the client’s perspective, and
  • explain the law on which the jury’s decision must be based.
The ideal closing argument is simple, clear, and presented with confidence. At the beginning of your closing argument, outline the major issues of the case and briefly explain the law as it relates to the events giving rise to the trial, including the burden of proof. Because the judge will instruct the jurors to base their verdict on only the evidence presented during trial, you need to explain to the jury that “evidence” refers to facts brought out in the witnesses’ testimony and in the documents, records, exhibits, and objects shown at trial.
Reconstructing the facts on which your case is based can have a tremendous impact on the jury, especially if you emphasize the significance of the events for those involved.
Here are three practical tips for your closing:
  1. Use vivid language. Vivid language will help the jurors imagine your client’s emotions during the events giving rise to the trial. Instead of blandly stating that your client lost the use of her legs in an accident, describe the events in story form: “Mary Hall drove to the park that sunny afternoon for a bicycle ride with her friends, hoping to experience the beauty of the outdoors. As Mary rode her rented bicycle down the slope in that serene and awe-inspiring place, the brakes failed, and she plunged over a cliff. Her life changed forever when her head struck the branch of a tree. She lay there unconscious, broken, never to walk again.”
  2. Review key evidence. Describe the essential points made by witnesses during examination and cross-examination. Remind jurors of the meaning and significance of the documentary and demonstrative evidence presented during the trial. Listing key facts on a blackboard or pad may be useful for emphasis. Plaintiff’s counsel should also explain the damages suffered by the client as a result of the events giving rise to the trial.
  3. Focus on your position. Only a little time is usually required to refute opposing counsel’s position. It’s better to concentrate on your side of the story to persuade the jury to adopt your client’s view of the evidence.
Closing argument is the single most valuable opportunity for the lawyer to communicate directly with the jury. Throw away the scholarly pages, look the jurors in the eye, and speak directly to them. Sincerity and clarity are very important. Never read the argument; rather, memorize the opening and closing lines of the argument and let the rest flow, directed by key words and notations.
For everything you need to make your closing argument the best it can be, turn to CEB’s Persuasive Opening Statements & Closing Arguments and California Trial Practice: Civil Procedure During Trial, chap 19. Also check out CEB’s program, Effective Opening Statements and Closing Arguments As Taught By California’s Top Trial Attorneys, available On Demand.
Related CEB blog posts:
© The Regents of the University of California, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

4 Responses

  1. very good advice. I have been trying cases for 23 years and I use the almost exact method as given above.
  2. Thanks, Marie! These tips came from the expert authors and consultants of CEB’s books. Do you have any tips to add?
  3. [...] Be a Strong Closer: 3 Tips for Your Closing Argument [...]

Add your comment to the blog post

이 블로그 검색