On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Trial Advocacy 2016

Released on: Aug. 8, 2016
Running Time: 06:25:45

If you think you will ever try a case, or if you want to do better the next time you are in trial, then this is the program you have been waiting for.  In this full-day program, some of the most experienced trial lawyers in California will talk about the best way to prepare and present a case to a jury.  We will cover what you need to do before the trial begins, in limine motions, jury selection, opening statements, witness preparation, direct and cross examination, experts, and closing arguments.  The training is designed for advocates with limited trial experience, but lawyers at all experience levels should benefit from this training.  The panelists are noted experts in trial advocacy who have each tried multiple cases to verdict.

You will learn:

  • Tips for properly preparing your case for trial
  • Use of deposition testimony at trial
  • Tactical considerations in preparing in limine motions
  • Tips on how to best use your limited peremptory challenges
  • Pointers on how to prepare witnesses for trial
  • Effective ways to deliver opening statements and closing arguments
  • Tips for navigating the dangerous seas of expert witnesses


Lawyers who want to be well-prepared for their first trial or more experienced trial lawyers who want to be better prepared for the next one should view this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:25:45]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:05:16]
    Arturo J. González
  • Preparing Your Case for Trial, Including Motions in Limine/Deposition Designations [01:03:42]
    Joan M. Haratani, Brendan P. Glackin, Robert J. Romero
  • Direct Examination; Trial Objections [00:59:52]
    Donald W. Carlson, Robert S. Arns, Wilma J. Gray
  • Jury Selection [01:01:20]
    Carrie Mason, James J. Brosnahan, Justine A. Cephus
  • Opening Statements and Closing Arguments [00:58:45]
    Michael J. Pérez, Nanci L. Clarence, G. Christopher Ritter
  • Expert Witnesses and Getting Documents into Evidence [01:02:20]
    Doris Cheng, Peter H. Kang, Nancy E. Pritikin, Glen Stevick, Ph.D., P.E.
  • Cross-Examination; Trial Objections [01:14:30]
    Stuart Gasner, Thomas J. Brandi, Heather S. Tewksbury

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Defense Trial Plan
    Joan M. Haratani, Robert J. Romero, Brendan P. Glackin
  • Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Notice of Motions and Motions in Limine (Nos. 19-28), In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (2012)
    Joan M. Haratani, Robert J. Romero, Brendan P. Glackin
  • Memorandum and Order, In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts (2015)
    Joan M. Haratani, Robert J. Romero, Brendan P. Glackin
  • Verdict Form, Phaedrus Internet Development, Inc. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (2014)
    Arturo J. González
  • Special Verdict Form (Bifurcated Trial—Second Phase), PC Specialists, Inc. v. Fusionstorm, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (2010)
    Arturo J. González
  • The Evidence Wheel—A Systematic Approach to Evidence
    Robert S. Arns
  • California Evidence Code Section 352
    Robert S. Arns, Donald W. Carlson, Wilma J. Gray
  • California Evidence Code Section 776
    Robert S. Arns, Donald W. Carlson, Wilma J. Gray
  • Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 611—Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
    Donald W. Carlson, Wilma J. Gray, Robert S. Arns
  • Jury Selection Overview
    James J. Brosnahan
  • Juror Questionnaire for Civil Cases, Code of Civil Procedure Section 205(c)-(d)
    James J. Brosnahan
  • Jury Selection (PowerPoint slides)
    James J. Brosnahan
  • A Practical Guide to Jury Selection—JuryScope (PowerPoint slides)
    Carrie Mason
  • Voir Dire (PowerPoint slides)
    Justine A. Cephus
  • Using Graphics in Your Opening Statement, Creative Winning Trial Strategies and Graphics, Chapter 8, Specialized Graphics
    G. Christopher Ritter
  • Using Graphics During Your Closing Argument, Creative Winning Trial Strategies and Graphics, Chapter 8, Specialized Graphics
    G. Christopher Ritter
  • Telling Your Story in Opening Statement
    Michael J. Pérez, Daniel B. Pleasant, Nanci L. Clarence, Cynthia McGuinn, G. Christopher Ritter
  • The Most Effective Opening Statement Ever Given?, The Champion, September–October 2012
    Christopher R. Hall, Nanci L. Clarence
  • Opening Statements and Closing Arguments (PowerPoint slides)
    Michael J. Pérez, Nanci L. Clarence, G. Christopher Ritter
  • Technical Expert Witnesses at Trial: Direct Examination and Related Trial Considerations
    Peter H. Kang
  • Technical Expert Witnesses at Trial: Direct Examination (PowerPoint slides)
    Peter H. Kang
  • Expert Witness Presentation—Deep Water Horizon Accident (PowerPoint slides)
    Glen Stevick
  • Expert Witness Presentation—US Liftboat Trinity II Accident (PowerPoint slides)
    Glen Stevick
  • Evidence Overview
    Thomas J. Brandi
  • 10 Steps to a Good Cross-Examination (PowerPoint slides)
    Stuart L. Gasner

Presentation Material


  • Resources
    Joan M. Haratani
  • Sample Plaintiff Corporation's [Proposed] Special Verdict Form
    Joan M. Haratani
  • Sample Special Verdict
    Joan M. Haratani
  • Jury Scope
    Carrie Mason
  • Jury Selection
    James J. Brosnahan
  • Voir Dire
    Justine A. Cephus
  • Opening Statements and Closing Arguments
    Nanci L. Clarence, Michael J. Pérez, G. Christopher Ritter
  • April 20, 2010 DeepWater Horizon Accident
    Glen Stevick, Ph.D., P.E.
  • East Wall Pattern Reconstruction
    Doris Cheng
  • Expert Witnesses
    Nancy E. Pritikin
  • Technical Expert Witnesses at Trial: Direct Examination
    Peter H. Kang
  • US Liftboat Trinity II, with Loss of Life Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico September 10, 2011
    Glen Stevick, Ph.D., P.E.
  • 10 Steps to a Good Cross-Examination
    Stuart Gasner
Chairperson(s)
Arturo J. González ~ Chair, Commercial Litigation and Trial Practice Group, Morrison & Foerster LLP
Moderator(s)
Donald W. Carlson ~ Senior Founding Partner, Carlson, Calladine & Peterson LLP
Doris Cheng ~ Partner, Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
Stuart Gasner ~ Partner, Keker & Van Nest LLP
Carrie Mason ~ Senior Consultant, JuryScope, Inc.
Michael J. Pérez ~ Partner, Pérez Vaughn & Feasby LLP
Speaker(s)
Robert S. Arns ~ Partner, The Arns Law Firm
Thomas J. Brandi ~ Partner, The Brandi Law Firm
James J. Brosnahan ~ Senior Trial Counsel, Morrison & Foerster LLP
Justine A. Cephus ~ Assistant District Attorney, San Francisco District Attorney's Office
Nanci L. Clarence ~ Partner, Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP
Brendan P. Glackin ~ Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Wilma J. Gray ~ Partner, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher LLP
Joan M. Haratani ~ Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Peter H. Kang ~ Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Nancy E. Pritikin ~ Partner, Labor and Employment Practice Group, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
G. Christopher Ritter ~ Member and Chief of Visual Trial Strategy, The Focal Point LLC
Robert J. Romero ~ Partner, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Glen Stevick, Ph.D., P.E. ~ Principal, Senior Mechanical Engineer, Berkeley Engineering And Research, Inc.
Heather S. Tewksbury ~ Partner, WilmerHale
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email
"Great brush up before a trial for new or experienced attorneys."
Donna M. Dean, Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice

"This is the best PLI CLE I have participated in.  Instructors were top notch."
2015 Attendee


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.