My client had 7-10 theories for the case. I told them to cut 80% of them.
More is not better.
More is the game of the defense.
If everything is important, then nothing is important.
In this case, the defendant had failed to check his tractor trailer before leaving, failed to fill up on fuel, failed to stop and refill, failed to find a truck stop as a safe place to stop, ignored low fuel lights, ignored his check engine light, and ended up stranded on the side of a narrow shoulder with his back end sticking out by a couple of feet into the slow lane. Our client (another tractor trailer) was left with a split second decision to avoid the truck and swerved into the wall, which killed him.
The defendant had used red fuel to avoid fees, failed to register his vehicle (and therefore was never inspected), and then claimed the truck died due to a sudden mechanical failure.
There were days of testimony to prove the cause of the crash (mechanical vs running out of fuel), whether the fuel gage was broken or not, whether it was an accurate read.
There were negligent hiring and trianing claims. Claims about whether warning triangles were required to be placed (or whether there was no time), whether his blinkers were on, whether he even had warning triangles in the truck.
The case became too complex. We didn’t have to fight causation if we framed it right.
The defendant ignored warnings. Period. He ignored low fuel lights and check engine lights. Whether the truck ran out of fuel or died from mechanical issues is irrelevant. Whether he had triangles and should have put them out doesn’t matter: had he pulled over when warning lights were buzzing and blinking, a life would have been saved.
If you focus on everything, jurors will lose sight of the end goal. The risk here was that jurors would decide the case based on the reason the truck stopped. By removing that as an issue, we refocused the jurors.
Those jurors walked in with their verdict wearing 9/11 shirts to honor our deceased who was a veteran.
Keep it simple.
jurorproof 