Like most of you, I have been waiting to learn the secret of winning from the Master. I want to win every case I try. What lawyer doesn’t? Since there is only one man in the entire United States who has never lost a criminal case, most of us have waited patiently for him to reveal his secret to the rest of us. Finally, he has done so.
I have been criticized for being “too superficial.” I suppose that means that my own intelligence quotient is dragging behind or at least isn’t on display. But remember, we can think our way to any decision. The reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court is a good example. The court’s numerous five to four decisions tells us that about half the court have thought themselves into the wrong decision and do so continuously. We can think ourselves into oblivion. Science is already knocking on that door with its invention of nuclear weapons and the manufacture and use of devices that will surely destroy this fragile, pretty little planet.
Don’t think? I didn’t see that coming.
I have said that it is as if the juror is about to embark on a journey through this forest and he or she has to decide which lawyer, as a guide, to follow. That’s why the only thing a trial lawyer has to sell to jurors is credibility. Without it, the most skilled, the most charismatic, the most comely, the best dressed, the highest paid, the lawyer with the highest IQ, the lawyer from the largest firm, even the one the judge seems to favor cannot win without credibility. It is also why the lawyer who may be frightened, inept, less skilled, not so eloquent, even second rate and sometimes befuddled will win every time if he or she is a credible person.
Have credibility? Sounds good. Nobody wants to be the incredible person. So be credible and don’t think.
If the lawyer does not trust the jurors, the jurors will not trust the lawyer. If the lawyer does not like the jurors, the jurors will respond in kind. If the lawyer keeps secret his or her feelings the jurors will secret their own. If the lawyer hides behind big words and tricky tactics the jurors will turn away from him. How hard is this to understand? I keep insisting that our role models should be our children. I have often said I have learned more from my kids and my dogs than from all of the super minds out there.
I’m not clear about the dog part, but I’m beginning to get it. Trust the jurors, be credible and don’t think.
Is that it? Apparently so. You can’t make this stuff up.
All that time and effort wasted on investigation, research, facts and law. But I’m still not clear what to do about the videotape of the defendant selling heroin to the cops.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So Maybe a Siesta is a Good Idea?
A personal admission:
So Maybe a Siesta is a Good Idea?
A personal admission:
So Maybe a Siesta is a Good Idea?
A personal admission:
So Maybe a Siesta is a Good Idea?
A personal admission:
C’mon, you’re being too harsh on him. He’s offering some valid pointers. This is not all. At least, I can’t imagine it is.
Of course being credible is valid. You’ve written about it. I’ve written about it. Pretty much everybody has written about it.
But no one else proclaimed it the secret of winning. Don’t blame me. I report. You decide.
I know the secret of winning. But that will have to wait until I post about it. NO ONE CAN PRE-EMPT ME! Mwahahaaha.
You are such a tease.
He’s not saying, “don’t think.” He’s saying “thinking isn’t enough.”
I grant you that the language is fuzzy, leaving readers to read into it what they want, but I think it’s stronger than “thinking isn’t enough.” He condemns thinking:
You know, it actually may be the case that Spence has something here – maybe the reason he allegedly has not lost is that jurors just, for some reason, perhaps unknown even to him, really like him to the extent that his credibility goes through the roof. It has certainly been the case that where evidence is shaky as hell, jurors still convict, so obviously evidence and facts aren’t everything (and are sometimes even irrelevant??).
What do you think of the advice of someone like McCarthy of “MacCarthy on Cross Examination”? I heard enough about it to be curious to read it, but given the price tag, I’m somewhat hesitant to pick it up just yet (still over $80 on amazon right now).
So follow the master’s “advice” in your next trial and let us know how it worked.
I believe it — I think Spence is too humble to realize that he has a gift that can’t be taught or replicated.
Trial is an improvisational art. An artist can’t improvise until he has the technique down pat. Terry MacCarthy teaches a cross-examination technique that anyone can use; he reduces cross-examination to a science, and provides a sound technical footing.
I’ve written about Terry several times at Defending People(shameless plug!); I would recommend buying the book after you’ve listened to the lecture; the seven-CD recording of his complete cross-examination and impeachment lecture is $150 from HCCLA.
I think you’re ignoring what he elides. Half the court have thought themselves into the wrong decision . . . and the other half have thought themselves into the right one. Scientists have invented devices that will surely destroy [hyperbole] this planet . . . and devices that make life on it less grim.
Harsh words and an overly critical attitude might not be the best thing to do. It is easy to nit-pick someones ideas and then challenge their theories. Gerry Spencer is one of the most successful trial lawyers in American history and is lengendary. It takes some serious gumption to challenge him, I don’t know whether to admire your gumption or to dis-your critical attitude. Yes, it is true one of the most successful trial lawyer’s in history might not be able to completely explain his success in only a few short words — he might have to write a book in collaboration with others. He is truly a magnificent trial lawyer.
I am unsure what is the long term benefit to nit-picking this man’s web blog. I can see why you might post a critical review in your blog instead of making a comment on his blog.
Yours in the Defense of Fellow Human Beings,
Glen R. Graham, Attorney at Law, Tulsa, Oklahoma
In Spence’s recent post about growing old, he writes: “I despise the sweet rhetoric that is so optimistic and feathery, and I equally abhor the moaning of old men who should have already died and who, in fact have been dead a long time but remain breathing.”
Spence is saying that there are zombies among us! Has he really lost it?!
Don’t you dare say I am misinterpreting him. His very words are that there are “old men who … in fact have been dead a long time but remain breathing [].” Don’t you dare say Spence is being figurative. Or there there’s a broader meaning.
He is clearly saying there are zombies among us! Or he’s ignoring biology, since it’s biologically impossible for a man to be dead but also breath.
Really, Scott, that’s what your Spence posts are starting to sound like.
I like your blog – a lot. And I think you have a lot to offer. The Spence stuff is beneath you.
FYI, I lost a job for talking shit about Spence; so I’m not among his Cult of Personality.
I just think the guy has a lot to offer if you look into the deeper meaning of what he says. You’re playing cutsie games with the guys words rather than addressing what his actual points.
To use Spence phraseology, What are you afraid of? Why are you afraid of addressing what he’s really saying?
Mike and Glen,
When Spence decided to blog, I welcomed him, but queried whether this lawyer, who clearly has much to offer both in skill and experience, will be a part of a conversation or a preacher leading his flock to the promised land.
It’s my purpose to challenge him to present posts of substance rather than grandiose metaphors. Others want only to bask in his reflected glory. Some who know him well (and you know well, Mike, one person of whom I speak) are appalled at how he’s trying to play the audience, like an ignorant jury fawning at his metaphysical allusions, letting him get away cheap.
It doesn’t matter a great deal what I have to say about Gerry Spence. He is who he is, and his accomplishments speak for themselves, regardless of what I write. For those looking for a god, or the opportunity to be near to a god, they will adore his pontifications.
I think he has much more to offer, but his sycophants are letting him get away cheap. I’ve known many great, maybe even legendary, lawyers. Most have great stories and some very real advice to offer. None would try to pass themselves off like this.
So, for those who think that this metaphysical poop fills their need to find a guru, a master, a god, let them sit at his knee, study his posts and tell him how wonderful he is. I don’t imagine he will be sending me cases, or writing about how much he enjoys reading my blawg, or calling to invite me to the church of Spence, so I have no reason to fawn over him.
Glen, it isn’t about gumption in challenging what the Almighty Gerry Spence writes. He’s just another lawyer, like you and me. He may be remembered as the lawyer who never lost a case, but then he never tried the cases that some other extraordinary lawyers tried, so I’m not inclined to see him as being alone in the heavens. There are a number of brilliant lawyers out there, but most would be ashamed to hold themselves out as being the Master of all criminal defense lawyers. They have egos, but none as monumental as that.
Mike, some of his metaphors are better than others, but comparing his “old man” metaphor to his offering the “secret of winning” mixes apples and oranges. His point that 4 of 9 on the Supreme Court “thought” wrong (which Bennett discusses above) came painfully close to substantive, but then lost it when he went on to argue that the most “inept” lawyer will win based solely on “credibility”. Of course credibility matters. Did anyone find that a startling revelation? But a firm grasp of the facts and law isn’t inconsequential either. Nor is the ability to effectively cross-examine. Do you really think that the most “inept” lawyer will win if drinks the cool-aid?
When he writes something great, we will all benefit. When he writes metaphysical junk to play the choir, no one benefits, though you would never know it from his adoring fans. Unless someone challenges the junk, he will never put in the effort to do something great. Maybe he doesn’t have it in him. Maybe he’s so taken by his own vision of his philosophical importance that this is the best he can do. I don’t know. But if that’s all there is, then Gerry Spence will live on as a great lawyer but a lousy blawger. In either event, he isn’t god and I have no intention of praying to him.
So make your choice Gentlemen. Will you pray at the alter of Spence or will you call it as you see it. Perhaps the problem is that I have higher expectations of Gerry Spence then his adoring fans. If you change the name (and photo) at the top of his blog, would you still be willing to pray there?
Let me me look into my magic mirror, and then I’ll get back to you.