Trial War Stories - Hard Lessons Learned Early with Eric Kennedy

Most trial lawyers love to talk about their biggest wins.

This episode is about a loss.

In this powerful installment of Trial War Stories, Andy Goldwasser sits down with legendary trial lawyer Eric Kennedy, a Hall of Fame attorney whose career has spanned some of the most significant cases in the country. But when asked to share the case that shaped him the most, Eric didn't choose a record-setting verdict or a landmark victory. He chose the one that haunted him for decades.

Known as "The Fulton Fish Case," the lawsuit arose after a fish market owner armed himself with an Uzi, chased a suspected thief, and shot him in the back as he fled. On paper, the facts appeared overwhelmingly favorable for the plaintiff. Witnesses contradicted the shooter's story. The physical evidence supported the claim. Yet the jury returned a defense verdict.
Why?

Eric walks listeners through one of the most important lessons a trial lawyer can learn: juries do not always decide cases based solely on facts. They decide through the lens of emotion, personal beliefs, and human nature. The episode explores how a young lawyer's confidence in the righteousness of his case collided with the reality of jury psychology—and how that experience transformed the way he evaluates cases, prepares for trial, and understands decision-making.

This conversation is a masterclass in trial strategy, case selection, wrongful death litigation, jury persuasion, cross-examination, damages presentation, and the emotional realities of courtroom advocacy. Eric candidly discusses the mistakes he made, the warning signs he ignored, and why losing this case ultimately made him a better lawyer.

Whether you're a seasoned trial attorney, a young lawyer preparing for your first jury trial, or someone fascinated by how juries make decisions, this episode offers lessons that can only come from decades of courtroom experience.

Topics Covered:

• Wrongful death and intentional tort litigation
• Evaluating difficult plaintiff cases
• Jury psychology and decision-making
• The role of emotion in verdicts
• Cross-examination strategy
• Case selection and risk assessment
• Trial mistakes and lessons learned
• Credibility, character evidence, and juror bias
• Learning from losses instead of victories
• How great trial lawyers develop over time

The cases we lose often teach us more than the cases we win. Eric Kennedy's story is a reminder that trial work is as much about understanding people as it is about understanding the law.
If you enjoy Trial War Stories, subscribe, leave a review, and share your own lessons from the courtroom. What case changed the way you practice law? We'd love to hear from you.

For more information about Andy Goldwasser and C&G Law, visit https://www.c-g-law.com/.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

It's not the cases that you win, it's the cases that you lose that you often remember the most. And today's guest is one of the best, truly a Hall of Fame lawyer who has tried massive cases to huge verdicts across the country. But when I asked him to come on this podcast and talk about a case, he chose the one that he lost. And the importance of that message is what we're going to discuss on today's show. Every trial lawyer has that one case, the one that pushed them to the edge, changed how they practice, or kept them up at night. This is Trial War Stories. And I'm your host, Andy Goldwasser. I sit down with great trial lawyers to unpack unforgettable cases, the strategy, the chaos, the pressure, and the moments that turn the tide beyond the transcripts and verdicts. And now to the show. My guest today is Eric Kennedy. Eric, welcome to the show. Good to be here. Good to be here.

SPEAKER_01 1:05

Never been on a podcast.

SPEAKER_00 1:06

You've never been on one? No. I've been wanting to have you on really for the longest time. Now, I mean, the the whole point of this podcast is to talk about trial war stories and give some advice and counsel to other people who are trying cases. And through this process, I have learned so much. And so you have always been at literally at the top of my list because you have tried so many unique and cool cases. And what's going to be fun about this particular podcast, this episode, is I know absolutely nothing about what we're going to talk about. So I can't wait. Tell us about this case you chose, why you chose it, and what it's about.

SPEAKER_01 1:44

Well, you said unique and cool. I'm not sure it was unique and cool. So yeah, I chose to uh talk about a case that I lost. Um I think you learn more from the cases you lose. And I think I chose this case because it's it's the only case in my 40-some years that has haunted me for 40 years. And so it's a case that I lost and uh lost and learned.

SPEAKER_00 2:07

So isn't it amazing how you actually you think more about the cases you lose than the cases you win? Aaron Powell I'm not sure it's funny, but it's true. It's ironic.

SPEAKER_01 2:16

It's certainly true. Um this one particularly. Yeah, it's it's uh I was young and uh impressionable and completely wrong on how I evaluated the case. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Can tell us about the case. I call it, you were looking for the title, I call it the the the Fulton Fish case. Um Fulton Fish was a fish market on woodland um in the in an area of a lot of public housing, high, high crime area. And uh fish would get delivered every morning at you know between six and seven in in the morning. And um what was happening is the fish truck would come, it would, it would pull up in front of Fulton Fish, and then uh as the folks were you know unloading boxes of fish into the store, somebody was coming up and stealing boxes of fish out of the back of the truck. And so the the owner, uh a man by the name of Mendezi, uh didn't like it. It made him angry. He lived out in Solam, but he had this, you know, this inner city fish market, and so he got uh he lived in Hudson, he got his Uzi and a handgun, and he drove a Ford Bronco, and so he pulled his Ford Bronco up at about five in the morning in a parking lot on the other side of Woodland, opposite the Fulton Fish Mark, and he kind of sat with his Uzi and his handgun and he waited. And uh, and sure enough, my my client, Mr. Gibbons, kind of shows up. The truck comes, they're unloading, the folks are inside unloading some some boxes of fish, and he comes and grabs a hundred-pound box of crab legs. And Mr. Mendezi is sitting across the street, and his Bronco sees this, starts it up, rushes across a woodland, you know, stopping traffic. Uh my guy, Gibbons, you know, sees the Bronco coming, he drops the hundred-pound box and just takes off down the street. And he's 22 years old. And Mendezi's 45, 50 years old, an overweight guy. And so he's never gonna catch Gibbons. He's never gonna catch him. And Givens is about a hundred feet down, and Mendezi jumps out of his truck on the sidewalk with his Uzi and shoots him, hits him in the back and kills him. Oh my gosh. Um and uh So much for calling the police. He takes Oh yeah, he's taken in in his own hands. He really is and uh shoots shoots Givens in the back, uh, hits him twice, uh, kills him. Uh case comes into us, I'm horrified by what happened. Angered, horrified. Um, I've got to write this horrible wrong. Umdezi maintained that Givens is running down the street. Uh he said, I've got my Uzi. And he says, Givens stopped. He stopped, he turned, he reached into his coat and screamed, I'll shoot you. That's why I shot him. Now, a couple problems with that, you know. Number one, um, Gibbons was gone. He's 100 feet away. He's 22, he's fast. Right. Mendezi's, you know, 45, he's overweight, he ain't fast. So my guy's gone. He doesn't need to stop. So to claim that he stopped is absurd. One. Two, for him to reach for a gun that he doesn't have makes no sense. Secondly, or thirdly, uh, from the autopsy report and the testimony of the coroner, that the bullets went in through his back and through his heart and came out of the front. He was shot in the back. Folks stopped in traffic when this whole thing is going on, say, hey, we saw this kid running and then simply fall. They never saw anybody stop and reach for a gun, let alone yell. So for me as a young lawyer, this is 1987. So I'm a I'm a seven-year lawyer. It's it's 1987. And for me, I was infuriated by the facts, infuriated by the bullshit lie story. Um, the system was every system is righteous, it's right, it's gonna right this horrible wrong, it's clearly gonna call out these lies. And um, so I was, you know, I was adamant. Uh and we tried the case. There were zero offers going in. Paul Eklund tried it for obviously oddly an insurance company. Um, great lawyer, good guy, probably a saving grace because he's he was a nice guy about it. Um and um I was told beforehand, you know, you ain't gonna win this case.

SPEAKER_00 6:35

Trevor Burrus, Jr. Well, Eric, what happened with the criminal case? Was that concluded?

SPEAKER_01 6:39

The criminal case ultimately got tried to a judge because they knew if they tried it to a judge that would probably be successful given, you know, Mendezzi was a a county sheriff, a part-time county sheriff, so he had a little bit of a presence down at the courthouse. Um it was tried uh criminally after our civil case, and he was acquitted. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 6:58

Because that's unusual. Usually the criminal case is done before the civil case.

SPEAKER_01 7:03

No. This got dragged for a long time. Um got dragged for a long time.

SPEAKER_00 7:09

Aaron Ross Powell, Jr. Were you able to actually conduct the deposition of Mandeese because of the pending criminal case? Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 7:15

They allowed me to take a deposition of him. Um we had a lot of discovery, and police officers testified. Uh he'd made some rate when he got arrested. He'd made some racial comments. My my client was black, made some racial comments at the Justice Room Elevator to the police who were very offended by it. Trevor Burrus, Jr. And there was no taking the Fifth Amendment. I mean, he No, no. He came in, he testified, he told his story, I cross-examined him, he stuck with his story, he stopped, he reached for the gun, he yelled, uh, I shot him. Um I mean, it just made no sense.

SPEAKER_00 7:44

Amazing. Amazing. And and tell me a little bit about Gibbons. Was he Well that was Yeah, that's the problem. Was he a career criminal?

SPEAKER_01 7:51

No, I mean you know, I I smile because I find a place for him in my heart. I mean, the the jury didn't. Um, you know, he he was married, he had a young child. Um, he was part-time going to Tri-C. Um, he was a thief. Um our difficulty, he was estranged from his mother. So, you know, a death case, you're bringing behalf of the loved ones of the family. So this case typically would have been brought behalf of the mother, his wife, and his child. But he was estranged from his mother, so we really couldn't include her in the case. We included his wife and his child, uh, even though they were kind of they were kind of on and off. They would live together sometimes and sometimes they wouldn't. But we were able to develop enough testimony with her as, hey, we're working it out, we're trying, we're making an effort. Within a few weeks of trial, uh, we discovered some domestic violence problems that he had and calls that she had made. And so we decided, well, we really can't put on a case on behalf of her because he's already a thief. We don't want an abusive husband, you know, prone to violence with his with his wife in the case. So we took her out as a beneficiary. And so we were going to bring the case only on behalf of the child. But we were afraid of the mother testifying about the relationship with the child. We were afraid of that. So it was in front of Judge Nugent. We only put in evidence that he has a child that's four years old. We were able to put that in. There's a presumption of damage or injury to that family member. So we really kind of were minimizing and trying to keep him as a person out of the case. It was bad enough, he was a thief. Uh, but we didn't need a thief and a and a bad husband and a bad son and a bad father. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 9:32

It's so interesting when I listen to this story because as an injury lawyer myself, I don't think I would even take that case.

SPEAKER_01 9:41

Yeah. Um, you know, Fred Wiseman, my mentor, had been practicing for 30 years, looked at me and said, you know, you're young. You knock yourself out, dude, but you're wasting your time. And I I I thought everybody was so wrong. What do you mean I'm wasting my time? He said, he's not, you know, they're not gonna pay a uh a thief. Um and to me, I was so I was so wrapped up in the facts of what had happened and um that I just I I couldn't see it. They offered $20,000 halfway through the trial. I said, $20,000. That's an insult. Uh I said, absolutely not. Um it was a it was a defense verdict.

SPEAKER_00 10:18

Um, but before we get there, so for the benefit of the listeners, what were your actual claims? Were they they wrongful death negligence? It was wrong.

SPEAKER_01 10:26

That was a wrongful death, assault, and battery. I mean, I I brought it as an intentional tort uh with a punitive component, uh compensatory component. Um it's excessive force. I mean, he wasn't protecting his own life, clearly, uh given the real facts. Uh he wasn't protecting the life of anybody else, which you would need to justify deadly force and shooting an Uzi is it's deadly force. Of course. He wasn't protecting his property anymore, even if that were a justification, because my kid had he'd dropped the box. Um and so it was excessive force, it was assault and battery. The um the defense of uh of self-defense to me was was a joke. Um so factually, it was a wonderful, it was a wonderful case. Factually. Um emotionally not.

SPEAKER_00 11:13

Yeah, I mean, well, it it does have other issues too. I mean, did you have a collectability concern at all?

SPEAKER_01 11:18

Um you know, you know, Paul Eckland was in for an insurance company, so there was some coverage. Um maybe he was on a reservation uh of rights. Um I could have messed around with a negligence claim, but didn't didn't want to emotionally. You had Fulton Fish, it was a successful business. Um I was more worried about getting the verdict first than I was gonna worry about, you know, collecting second.

SPEAKER_00 11:41

Um so how do you put together a case like that? Because, you know, in today's age, we would focus group that case, we'd figure out what works, what doesn't work, and how to theme it and all those kinds of things. What did you do back in the late 80s when putting together a case like that?

SPEAKER_01 11:57

When your boss says, I'm gonna let you waste your time trying it, but you're not spending any of our money. There you go. You're not focus grouping that. Right. I mean, you're yeah, I mean, you're you got a court report of the deposition, but you're not even ordering the transcript. And you're not doing video, you're not running the transcript. So, yeah, we we tried it, you know, cheap. I tried it with a coroner, which is you don't have to pay the coroner to testify. The police officers, you don't have to pay them to testify. Uh, I cross-examined Mendesia trial. We tried it in a uh, you know, in a week. Um, there was a lot of motion practice. I was trying to keep out, you know, bad father, you know, bad son, bad father. There was a lot of motion practice on that. You know, some of it went our way, some of it didn't. I was I was so emotionally wrapped in some of the rulings. Uh, my reaction was such that Judge Nugent offered to, you know, put me in the orange suit and send me to jail for for the day if I couldn't relax a little bit.

SPEAKER_00 12:44

And for those who don't know, Judge Nugent's a t a tough guy. And certainly back then, it was he on the state court bench?

SPEAKER_01 12:50

State court bench, yeah. And and I couldn't relax. I it was all way, I was so young and so personal and so offended uh by what had happened, uh, and such a believer the system will right this wrong. Um and that you know, it's it's what I probably didn't realize, which you know, as you try more cases, is you know, the decision-making process of a jury. It's it's much more of a of an emotional decision-making process as opposed to an objective factual decision-making process.

SPEAKER_00 13:21

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: So let's talk about that. I mean, tell can you tell us like what did you misread about the jury? What did you do wrong in that case? Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 13:29

I thought the decision-making process that that folks look at the facts. And maybe everybody's got different brains, but if you're going to generalize, I think that you know what I missed was um people arrive at a at an emotional decision. The emotional decision here was we are not rewarding a thief. He's not rewarding a thief. And it and it was it was seeping through that he wasn't a good human being with respect to mom, wife, child. That was seeping through. It's impossible to keep it completely out. But he was a thief. And emotionally, a juror's not gonna want to pay him. But they've got these facts. Um, so I think that what I missed is people make emotional decisions and then they're gonna they're gonna manipulate uh the facts a bit so that they allow themselves to make the emotional decision as opposed to the other way around.

SPEAKER_00 14:20

Yeah, they're gonna see it through their lens. And if their lens is an emotional lens and they don't like your guy. That's the emotional decision.

SPEAKER_01 14:27

And and they're gonna take the facts and manipulate them from them that allows them to make their emotional decision. Um I was caught up in the facts. So how can you ignore these facts?

SPEAKER_00 14:38

Well, it's it's it's so interesting that you say that, Eric, because my father has always taught me the facts drive verdicts. If you have good facts, you'll get a good verdict, even if you're a subpar lawyer. If you have bad facts, even if you're a great lawyer, you're probably not going to win the case. Right. It sounds like that's not necessarily true in your particular case.

SPEAKER_01 14:57

Yeah, I I think you need to look as a planner, I think you need facts and emotion. But I mean, you read some of the basic, you know, textbook on decision making. Um, and you know, one of the great examples they always use is, you know, husband and wife, and the husband cheats. And, you know, the in the aftermath, the the wife makes the decision, you know. I you know, I love him, I want to be with him. She's gonna take the facts of his cheating and she's going to manipulate a mold. Well, it was just once, or we won't really getting along when it's promised not to do it again. Right. And she's gonna make those facts fit the emotional decision that she wants to make. If she decides, you know, I'm throwing them out, then you know, the facts of his cheating, she's gonna amplify them and make them horrible. And that's a jury. I I think that they they they are more anchored to that emotional position that they want to take than the facts. Trevor Burrus, Jr. And you didn't recognize the fact that no. Um I I I was just I was convinced the facts were you know too empowering, you know, too strong, too bold. And my emotional decision was I hated this guy. I mean, I I hated everything that he was about.

SPEAKER_00 15:58

You know, he was a a racist, he was violent, he um did the case go in like when you were presenting evidence to go in the way you wanted? Did you did you think the case was going actually pretty well?

SPEAKER_01 16:09

It went fine. I mean, he he he got up and told a story, and it was like, okay, uh thank you very much for telling that absurd story. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 16:15

When do you when you put the defendant on the stand to cross-examine him, because you were so emotionally invested in the case, were you emotional during your cross-examination?

SPEAKER_01 16:23

You know, I mean, I mean, I just gave a a lecture on you know cross-examination. You you you gotta remember that um the jury's never met the guy. I mean, you've been thinking about him for a year and a half and you hate him on question one. They don't hate him yet. And so um yeah, I got emotional by the by the end when his story was so ridiculous, but certainly didn't start with that anger because the jury wasn't angry yet. Um but I was hopeful and perceiving that by the time I I got there, his story was so ridiculous that I could have generated some of that anger. But whatever anger I might have generated generated on an emotional standpoint clearly was outweighed by this thought, hey, you know, we're not we're not paying thieves who aren't good human beings.

SPEAKER_00 17:05

Was he the first witness you put on in your case, if you remember? Because he's the only one who could really tell the facts of what occurred.

SPEAKER_01 17:12

Right. Um Yeah, it was him. It was some of the people stopped in traffic uh, you know, after that. Um, you know, the coroner. Um it was uh who'd you put on for your damages? I mean, you have a four-year-old. No, no, no, no, nobody. I I went with the presumption of damage. I just I couldn't. There was nobody that I could put on, you know, given the motions and the rulings, had I put anybody on to talk about the rel any of these relationships, the judge was gonna let across that was gonna really hurt.

SPEAKER_00 17:37

Did you even try to like build up anything about your plaintiff, your client? Nothing.

SPEAKER_01 17:44

No. And that was that was the tough side of the case. Oh my gosh. There was nothing positive. Again, he was I was starting with a thief. And every any positive that I could have brought out, it would really would have had to be his wife, who he kind of lived with, kind of didn't. But the judge says, hey, you want to put her on, that's fine. But we're gonna talk about no child support, how often he actually sees his child, uh, whether he's around at the time of birth. And I just thought that I'm gonna I'm gonna try it on the defendant's conduct and those facts.

SPEAKER_00 18:13

And you have to be so careful when you're doing that not to open up the door. Correct.

SPEAKER_01 18:18

Yeah. That is that is But it was a big void. It was a big void. But I, again, I didn't read it. I was all in.

SPEAKER_00 18:26

Do you remember? I know this is a while. Do you remember what you even asked the jury for?

SPEAKER_01 18:32

Oh, I'm I am sure it was several hundred thousand dollars. Which at that time would was pretty significant verdicts. I'm sure. And I probably asked for too much, you know, there too. But um Yeah, it like it was a classic example of a young lord just blinded by their own emotion, uh, their own belief that, you know, everything's gonna turn out right based upon you know the facts.

SPEAKER_00 18:57

Aaron Powell And I and I have so many questions about this, Eric, and I want to go back in time in just a moment. But before I get there, you're you're you you you present the case to the jury. The jury is now out. Because you're so invested in this, do you actually think we're we're gonna win this thing when the jury's out?

SPEAKER_01 19:16

Yeah. I mean, I um yeah. I I mean the case came in the way I expected. Um look, it was always tempered by the fact that I had all these people at the at the law firm chirping in my ear, you're wasting your time. Right. Um and so, you know, you you do get to the point, you know, how is it I'm the only person that's right? You know what I'm saying? And so I had that question, and why is everybody telling me I'm wrong? Uh but I still had my other side of of total belief and emotion and the facts. I mean, him telling this absurd story was such a bonus.

SPEAKER_00 19:50

Who did you even have sitting with you at the table? No, no, no.

SPEAKER_01 19:53

Mr. Wiseman Mr. Wiseman wasn't gonna let me waste my time and have anybody sitting here.

SPEAKER_00 19:57

No, so I mean, but you didn't have a c I mean, you didn't have a client there.

SPEAKER_01 20:01

No, it was me. I mean I was sitting at the table. Um, he said, you're not wasting the time even of a law clerk. Um so you're gonna go do this all yourself, and and you know, good luck, and it's gonna be a great experience. You're gonna get some trial experience, but you ain't gonna make any money for them or us.

SPEAKER_00 20:16

So it's uh it's amazing. So the jury comes back, they give the defense verdict. Yeah. What were you feeling?

SPEAKER_01 20:23

I was, you know, it's you've you've maybe you've never lost a case. I've I've lost. Uh but you know, it's it's a sickening feeling. And this was even look, it's it was so I didn't drive down Woodland. You know, Woodland was my way home. I didn't drive back by Fulton Fish. I didn't drive that route for 20 years. I I wouldn't even drive by Fulton Fish. Um, I still remember Paul Eklund and Mendezy hugging each other. I mean, just hugging, yelling, and just me just, you know, folding my stuff up and you know, walking back to the office so that everybody could look at me, go, we told you so.

SPEAKER_00 20:53

Oh my gosh. So now we fast forward 30 years, Eric, and and for those that don't know you, uh I mean, your career really is legendary. I mean, you're literally in the hall of fame of lawyers. You've tried massive, major cases, including bellwether cases all over the country. And yet you selected this case against Fulton Fish when you were a young lawyer and you lost. Why?

SPEAKER_01 21:22

Because it's still the one I think about more than any other case I've ever won or lost. It's still the one.

SPEAKER_00 21:27

That's amazing. You think about it more than an opioid trial or uh um a hip case or one Absolutely, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 21:37

It's the one. It's the one. I think everybody has the one. And it's you know, it's like your first love. You know, it's like your first love is the one that's the most real and the most intense. And this was like I was young, and it had such an impact more than any other loss or any other win.

SPEAKER_00 21:51

It's so cool because uh most people who come on this podcast, or most lawyers, they only want to talk about their wins, right? Their greatest cases in in Their career, for you, you're this accomplished trial lawyer and you're coming in talking about a case that you lost. So what did you learn from that experience?

SPEAKER_01 22:10

One, you got to have the emotion along with the facts. And then, you know, there's been, you know, a book, you know, written long, you know, that uh after this by some great trial lawyers, that reptilian theory of trial, that the human brain has this little piece in it that's the same as this little piece in reptiles, and it's that self-preservation piece. And then when you when you try cases, you try to click into that to convince the jury that their verdict is really going to help preserve their well-being. And if you look at this case, a jury's not going to sit there and go, hey, I'm worried about somebody shooting me with an Uzi when I'm stealing fish. They're not. They're worried about thieves. And so they're going to want to return a verdict that's going to tell thieves, you know, don't do that because it's self-preservation. I don't want a thief stealing from me. So if you put the reptilian theory, which I, you know, began to practice and think about years later, it fits into this loss. It also fits into my concept of, you know, the emotional decisions versus the rational, logical, evidence-based decisions. Um, so I think that I learned that the facts are great. You need the facts, but at the same time, jurors are reptiles. At the same time, people, I think they hold a little bit tighter to their emotional anchors than they do their logical, fact-based anchors.

SPEAKER_00 23:35

Did it help you in your career, having lost that case, sort of change your not only your mindset, but the way that you tried cases after that?

SPEAKER_01 23:46

Yeah, I I think I was I'm I'm much more aware of the emotional pieces, the reptilian pieces, the importance of those, uh, making sure I communicate those, and then evaluating cases. If you love the facts, but you don't like where the case is emotionally, you don't have a plane that people are going to want to give money to, you ought to be thinking about that in your evaluation. It helps with the trial of the case, it also helps with the evaluation of the case. Um I'd like to say it it's caused me to listen to others around me more, but it hasn't. I still think I'm right. I know what's going on here. I've thought about this more than anybody here. Um, but it's made me consider that in my evaluation piece.

SPEAKER_00 24:26

Eric, when you try a case now, having tried all these cases and and having the career that you you have had, how do you control your own emotions in a courtroom?

SPEAKER_01 24:38

Um I think that you just, if you're aware of it and you're conscious of it, then you can control it. Um You know, that that old saying that the the French general who said, you know, I'm gonna go out and lead my troops, but first I need to find out where they want to go. And that's what you're doing with a jury. Um you don't show anger until you are convinced that's where the jury wants you to go. You don't show empathy until you are convinced that's where the jury wants you to go. So I think if you're always conscious of the mindset that your emotion needs to be controlled by where the jury wants you to go, um, you'll be just fine. And anger, you gotta be real careful with anger. I mean, as I said, in a cross-examination, usually you know so much about the witness, you by the time you start, you think they're not credible, they're liars, and you're mad already. But the jury's never met the person. And in fact, they just heard a cross a direct examination where they come across as a really good person. So you gotta be very careful. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 25:35

It's something that I've really struggled with personally, and and I've learned so much from this podcast talking to lawyers like you. I mean, I've talked about it on earlier podcasts. I mean, my I I asked you that question about whether you put the defendant in your case early on on cross-examination. The reason I asked that is because I've done that historically. And it's failed miserably for me because I can't control myself enough to hold back. And the jury doesn't know anything about this guy, and they're looking at the lawyer saying, Why is the lawyer? Right, why is he so mad? Why is he attacking him? Because you've lived it for two years, right? Or three years. Right. So I I guess it just comes with the experience and and skill. What else had did you learn from that trial besides just the whole, you gotta consider the emotion, you gotta consider the uh what the jury's thinking from a reptilian perspective. Um from a lawyering perspective is my question.

SPEAKER_01 26:30

Yeah. Um I mean, those were really the the big takeaways from me. And I and I think that um, you know, what I learned also, and and I haven't, I shouldn't say learned it, I experienced it, I uh, but I'm certainly better at it. Um, you know, you can't let the losses haunt you the way this one has haunted me. And so I think I've been able to kind of take my losses and you know and move on, except for this one. Um this is the only one I really never moved on from. And I attribute to a lot of things. I thought I was so right, I so miscalculated, um, I was so young. It was it was my first love. Um and so I I I'm able to move on from losses these days.

SPEAKER_00 27:14

I have to ask you, only because I know the people involved, what did Fred Wiseman say to you when you returned to the office?

SPEAKER_01 27:20

He just looked at me and smiled. He says, He looked at I'm I'm proud that you for you. You went down and you did it. Um he used to say to me, and I didn't understand it in the beginning, he said, you know what my reputation in this city is? And I said, Well, well, no. He says, Everybody knows I'm not afraid to lose. And I was like, Well, why is that good? But it is. And for him, um I was kind of building that reputation. He's not afraid to lose. And so if your opponent knows you're not afraid to lose, they know you'll go down and try the case. And if they know you go down and try the case, you get better values and resolution. So um I think he was proud of me for going down and doing it. Uh, I think he was proud of my conviction. And um but uh, you know, you know, we're not gonna do too many of those because we need to make a living also.

SPEAKER_00 28:06

That's right. Uh I mean, you you ran the firm for years. You say you still do. If you had a young lawyer come into your office and tell you those same facts, what would you say to that?

SPEAKER_01 28:14

Go for it. Go for it. Look at I in in our firm, I'll say the thing about our firm, and I've been around for 40 or something years, and this was Fred, and um and it's certainly me. We you want to go try a case uh and and you lose and it's cost us money. You've never been penalized for trying a case and losing money we expand it, because we do not want to discourage anybody from going down there and doing what they think is right. It in the long run, it's a benefit to us because people in the community know we'll go down and do it. If you don't want to pay us fair money, we'll go down and do it. We're not afraid to lose. Yeah. And there's something to that.

SPEAKER_00 28:48

Such a great lesson. Eric, I enjoyed this conversation so much. Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing it.

SPEAKER_01 28:55

My first podcast. This is great. It's great. Well, I appreciate it. Come every week.

SPEAKER_00 28:58

I love it. I appreciate it. Well, you there's I could go for I don't know how long we've been going. I could have to look somewhere. Oh, 30 minutes. Otherwise, I'd keep talking and I have a lot more questions for you, but we'll save it for another year. Thanks, Eric. Thanks.