Ciara Anderson, Omeed Azmoudeh, and Crist Whitney – Part 2: The “Main Brains” Behind $20M Police Shooting Verdict
In Part 2 of his look at a high-profile civil rights case, host Keith Fuicelli interviews the young trial team that secured $20 million. These “main brains” behind the verdict – Ciara Anderson, Omeed Azmoudeh, and Crist Whitney – reveal how they divided duties to represent six bystanders who were injured when a former Denver police officer shot into a crowd. Tune in for their insights about voir dire (“we went in with the strategy of finding liberal gun owners”), themes in opening (“you do not shoot into a crowd”) and witness preparation (“for our client, I wanted to get his emotional story out to the jury.”). Learn more about the case in Part 1.
Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers
☑️ Ciara Anderson | LinkedIn
☑️ Omeed Azmoudeh | LinkedIn
☑️ Crist Whitney | LinkedIn
☑️ Rathod Mohamedbhai on LinkedIn | Instagram | X | YouTube
☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn
☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website
☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn
☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube
Episode Snapshot
- Ciara's opening focused on establishing credibility while withholding powerful evidence like the defendant’s criminal conviction.
- In voir dire, Crist’s strategy was to find “liberal gun owners” who understood gun safety principles and would recognize the recklessness of firing into a crowd.
- The team distilled their case theme to a simple rule: "You do not shoot into a crowd.”
- Officer Ramos suggested that a worse backdrop than shooting into a crowd of people would be "senators, presidents, and very important people." In his closing, Omeed noted that their clients are “very important people.”
- Omeed organized his cross-examination of Officer Ramos into chapters, each making one narrow point, with questions becoming increasingly focused during preparation: A "know your target" chapter split into separate chapters on "know your target" and "know what's beyond.”
- The team's collaborative preparation involved often working until 3:00 a.m. and extensive role-playing where Ciara portrayed Officer Ramos for Omeed's cross-examination practice.
- For punitive damages, the team dismantled the defense attempt to minimize Officer Ramos’ criminal conviction. He had pleaded guilty in a “sweetheart” deal that avoided jail time. Omeed told the jury: “Look, folks, if you're as enraged as we are, here's what you should note. This guy has never been punished for this conduct.”
The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.
Transcript
Welcome to the Colorado
Trial Lawyer Connection,
Speaker:where Colorado trial lawyers share
insights from their latest cases. Join me,
Speaker:Keith Fuicelli, as we uncover
the stories, strategies,
Speaker:and lessons from recent Colorado trials
to help you and your clients achieve
Speaker:justice in the courtroom. The
pursuit of justice starts now.
Speaker:Howdy everyone,
Speaker:and welcome back to part two of a
two-part episode on the Colorado
Speaker:Trial Lawyer Connection Podcast,
Speaker:where we're going to talk with
the main trial team on the case
Speaker:involving Officer Ramos. And
this, of course, as a recap,
Speaker:is the case in which Officer Ramos
fired multiple shots at an individual.
Speaker:I think maybe he hit the individual,
Speaker:but he hit lots of people that
were behind the individual,
Speaker:resulted in a spectacular
verdict in Denver County.
Speaker:And we are fortunate today to
have who by all accounts are the
Speaker:main workhorse, the main trial team,
Speaker:the main brains behind this
amazing result. So with that,
Speaker:I would love to welcome Crist
Whitney, Ciara Anderson,
Speaker:and Omeed Azmoudeh, hope I got that
right, to the podcast. Welcome everyone.
Speaker:Thanks for having us. Hi.
Speaker:Thanks for having us.
Speaker:So Crist, why don't we start with you.
Speaker:Tell us a little bit about yourself
and how it is that you became a trial
Speaker:lawyer.
Speaker:Well, I'm originally from New
Jersey. I came to Colorado,
Speaker:I want to say around 2001. I was
a music artist for a long time.
Speaker:Wow. And then I started
writing. I wrote a couple books.
Speaker:I went back to school because
I wanted to be a better writer.
Speaker:And while I was there, I
started studying history,
Speaker:polysci.
Speaker:And then I met a professor who
suggested after writing a brief
Speaker:about the water rights or the Standing
Rock Tribe suggested I go to law school.
Speaker:Wow.
Speaker:So then I applied and
fortunately I got in.
Speaker:I always wanted to do civil rights law,
Speaker:considering a lot of police
brutality that the black
Speaker:community sees on a regular basis.
Speaker:So that's something that inspired
me and pushed me through law school.
Speaker:Once I got out of law school,
Speaker:I met with the heads of the firm here
at Rathod Muhammad Bay and luckily was
Speaker:asked to join the team.
And now I'm here now.
Speaker:What a great firm you
landed with. Great story.
Speaker:I agree.
Speaker:So I want to go back to the music piece
because I was in a band for 20 years.
Speaker:What'd you play?
Speaker:I actually was a hip hop artist.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:So I was an MC.
Speaker:All right. That's fantastic.
Speaker:I've recorded over maybe
a hundred or so songs.
Speaker:Wow. And I sometimes wonder if,
this is just me thinking out loud.
Speaker:There's the Lady Gaga song.
It's all about the applause.
Speaker:And I wonder if people that are in bands,
Speaker:like we want to be praised on
this like subconscious level.
Speaker:We want to be on stage. We
want the crowd to applaud.
Speaker:And so we find ourselves in the courtroom
where I guess the next best thing,
Speaker:but I digress. So that's fascinating
story. Ciara, what about you?
Speaker:Did you always know you
wanted to do trial work?
Speaker:If you had asked me 10 years ago even,
Speaker:I wouldn't have even known
that I wanted to be a lawyer.
Speaker:I had always had a plan to be a
psychologist and a substance abuse
Speaker:and work with people who
struggled with addiction.
Speaker:And then after undergraduate,
Speaker:I didn't get into the graduate program
that I had wanted and I didn't want to
Speaker:move back to Nashville. I'm
originally from Tennessee.
Speaker:So I moved to Colorado with no money,
Speaker:no plan and no idea what the world
had in store. And it worked out,
Speaker:thank goodness.
Speaker:I got a job at a law firm and was
going back and forth between Teach for
Speaker:America or the LSAT.
Speaker:And I did a little bit better on the
LSAT than I did for the Teach for America
Speaker:application. Shortly after
getting into law school,
Speaker:I did the DU civil rights clinic for a
couple of years and that's my first year
Speaker:doing that. I worked on an excessive
force case for a little girl
Speaker:and was able to resolve that and then
moved on and was able to work on a case
Speaker:involving solitary confinement
for a man. And so that really,
Speaker:I grew up knowing what it's like
to not have your voice heard in a
Speaker:courtroom.
Speaker:And so really getting to
take that client-centered
approach and advocate for our
Speaker:clients is really what makes me
want to be a trial lawyer and
Speaker:really fuels my.
Speaker:Being a trial lawyer.
Speaker:And it sounds like dealing with
the solitary confinement case,
Speaker:did that have a profound
impact on your sort of
Speaker:core being on how you represent
folks that your firm represents?
Speaker:Yeah, absolutely. Working on that case,
Speaker:I have a tattoo that says human because
I think so frequently we forget that we
Speaker:as attorneys are human, but
also our clients are very human.
Speaker:And so just remembering
that very human aspect.
Speaker:And I have that tattoo in large
part because of this client and that
Speaker:experience, but it's a very
rewarding clientele. I mean,
Speaker:we get to see people on their
worst days and hopefully bring
Speaker:the better side or bring
justice to those worst days.
Speaker:So definitely that early client
is somebody who continues
to inspire me still to.
Speaker:Do that. Yeah. And I find
myself wanting to ask,
Speaker:but hesitating about the current
political environment and what we are
Speaker:seeing with these ICE raids.
I just can't imagine ...
Speaker:I know how it makes me feel and I don't
specialize in the type of work that you
Speaker:all do and I can only imagine seeing this.
Speaker:So I guess I'll ask all of you,
Speaker:what does it mean to you personally to
Speaker:be on the front lines of
ensuring and protecting our
Speaker:civil rights and what exactly does
that mean? We have civil rights.
Speaker:So Crist, maybe I'll just throw
this at you. What do you think?
Speaker:What are our civil rights and why is
it important to protect and fight for
Speaker:those?
Speaker:Well, civil rights is
pretty much all we have.
Speaker:That's what protects us
against the government.
Speaker:And you see like right
now with these ICE raids,
Speaker:a complete disregard for humanity,
Speaker:like just what we saw the
other day, a lady scared,
Speaker:driving away and can
just be shot like that.
Speaker:And then what's going to
happen to these ICE officers?
Speaker:It's like they're pretty much,
Speaker:everyone's going to throw
their hands up and like, "Okay,
Speaker:this was fine shoot." And then you see
the power behind it just to be able to
Speaker:call her a terrorist and to be able to
call her all kinds of things as opposed
Speaker:to a human and as opposed to a mother. And
Speaker:there's a big power structure against
us as people and it's like people
Speaker:like Ciara and Omeed and
me, the force between that.
Speaker:And so it does,
Speaker:it feels empowering. It also
feels frustrating because
a lot of the times things
Speaker:don't change fast enough, at least for me,
Speaker:change does come slow and incrementally
and you kind of want things to
Speaker:change a lot quicker. And
especially in this situation,
Speaker:like how do we stop ICE
from violating people's,
Speaker:not just civil rights,
but also human rights.
Speaker:So that can be very frustrating as well.
Speaker:Yeah. Again, I digress. I won't
spend too much time on it.
Speaker:Maybe at the end we can talk about quote
absolute immunity that the government
Speaker:is professing that these ICE agents
hold and the absurdity of that.
Speaker:It's outrageous.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:It's outrageous. But one of the
things, Crist, that you just said,
Speaker:it brings me back. The
last trial that I did,
Speaker:I was starting my opening by quoting,
Speaker:"We hold these truths to be self-evident."
And it goes right to what you were
Speaker:saying about human
rights and civil rights,
Speaker:but our forefounders enshrined
in our constitution had the
Speaker:wisdom, these inalienable
rights. I just found it profound.
Speaker:So kudos to you and your team
protecting human rights and civil
Speaker:rights. And I like that
quote. And it's so good.
Speaker:That we hold these truths to be
self-evident. And I believe it starts off,
Speaker:we the people. Yeah. And a lot
of the times we forget that,
Speaker:especially in a society where
it's always the I before the we.
Speaker:So we do forget that we are
a country, a collective,
Speaker:and there's a lot of individualism that
we hear and people not wanting to go
Speaker:out on the limb for others.
Speaker:Yeah. I love the endowed by
their creator with certain
Speaker:inalienable rights among them, life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Speaker:And it's so profound
for me as a civil lawyer
Speaker:that those rights were ...
Speaker:The government is prohibited
from infringing on those rights.
Speaker:And so when those rights are
taken in the civil context,
Speaker:it just makes it profound for
the jury to now say, "Okay,
Speaker:these rights have been taken and now
it's time to right a wrong." So I do love
Speaker:that quote and I feel like I
use it nine times out of 10.
Speaker:Omeed, sorry for the delay.
Speaker:Tell us a little bit about yourself and
how it is that you came to be a trial
Speaker:lawyer.
Speaker:For some reason or another, I
always wanted to be a lawyer.
Speaker:So I grew up pretty early knowing
I wanted to do it. Maybe it was TV,
Speaker:maybe it was a book that
I read, I'm not sure,
Speaker:but I pursued the path kind of
straight out of the gate and I
Speaker:went to see you at the time thinking
that I wanted to be an environmental
Speaker:lawyer, something like the
Sierra Club or Earth Justice,
Speaker:NCU as a great environmental
program. And pretty quickly,
Speaker:and maybe this was just a presumption
that I acted on and it wasn't right,
Speaker:but what I thought was, "Boy,
Speaker:these folks are working for 10
years to get one river flowing at
Speaker:five drops extra than the last 10 years."
And I don't know if I can dedicate my
Speaker:life to that. And so I, out of law school,
Speaker:I went to a big firm to just pay off
some debt and get some good training
Speaker:actually,
Speaker:a big firm here in Denver
before stumbling upon really
Speaker:the civil rights path and Sadartha and
Q who owned this firm and realizing
Speaker:that what a path it was. And I related
to it in so many ways growing up
Speaker:as a brown boy in a nine eleven
era, realizing, "Holy smokes,
Speaker:these are those rights that
were so imperative to me
and so important to my own
Speaker:life.
Speaker:And here's an opportunity
with the skillset that I
have to be able to help other
Speaker:people experiencing the similar
things, not the same thing,
Speaker:but I landed here and I don't know that
I would practice law any other way at
Speaker:this point." I mean, I love it.
Speaker:I feel the same way.
Speaker:I don't think I could be doing
any other type of legal work.
Speaker:And I also went to see you thinking I
was going to be an environmental lawyer,
Speaker:but then pretty quickly
realized, wait a minute,
Speaker:and like you grew up watching law and
order in the practice. And I was like,
Speaker:"Wait a minute.
Speaker:So these people are getting paid to do
that because it just seemed like it was
Speaker:so much fun." And then from there,
I was sold hook, line and sinker.
Speaker:So all right,
Speaker:let's get into this case
because both Sedartha and
Speaker:John all agreed that you
all were the team that
Speaker:really the workhorse on this. So I'll
try to point questions to individuals,
Speaker:but how did you guys
decide the division of
Speaker:work in the case? Was there someone
that was sort of the lead on the case?
Speaker:I don't think anybody was the lead,
Speaker:but we actually had a really honest
conversation amongst ourselves and with
Speaker:ourselves right before trial about what
our strengths were, not weaknesses,
Speaker:just what are our strengths.
Speaker:And it became pretty clear that Crist
is the most personable person on the
Speaker:planet. So we wanted him to handle jurors,
Speaker:difficult witnesses like experts,
Speaker:just so that very quickly where there
needed to be a rapport established,
Speaker:what was the dog that we were going to
send out to establish that rapport that
Speaker:was going to be Crist?
And on the flip side,
Speaker:we realized that Ciara is the most
organized person and who can tell the
Speaker:clearest story from scratch.
And so she did our opening.
Speaker:And I suppose the thinking was that
I can think quickly on my feet and
Speaker:potentially nail and hammer things home
at the end. So I landed on closing,
Speaker:but it was the choice I think that we
made. And I'll let the others chime in
Speaker:kind of how they remember
that conversation, but
that was my memory of it.
Speaker:Yeah. I would echo what Omeed said.
Speaker:We definitely had to have that honest
conversation about what our strengths
Speaker:were. And I think at the outset,
Speaker:it had been very much tossed
up in a very different way,
Speaker:but how it played out after
having that conversation,
Speaker:I think it did play on all of
our strengths. Omeed in closing,
Speaker:he also did the cross of Officer Ramos.
Speaker:And so having a person who played a very
Speaker:consistent role throughout
the trial, then close it,
Speaker:and he did a phenomenal job. And
then Crist, Sam as Omeed said,
Speaker:he's very personable
and immediately likable.
Speaker:And so he connects really well
with people and did a great job
Speaker:with the jury selection.
Speaker:So Ciara, since we sort of have
you on the stage, if you will,
Speaker:talk to us a little bit about what your
thoughts were on the opening and not
Speaker:just sort of what you wanted
to accomplish in the opening,
Speaker:but for maybe some of our
younger listeners, newer lawyers,
Speaker:what did you do to prepare? Did you
rehearse? How did you actually go about,
Speaker:once you knew you're doing the
opening and highly publicized,
Speaker:big trial, you're going to
be asking for lots of money,
Speaker:sounds very intimidating
to a lot of people.
Speaker:What'd you do to prepare
yourself for that?
Speaker:Well, long before the trial,
Speaker:I had participated in a
trial advocacy training.
Speaker:And so through that, I was able
to learn how to do openings.
Speaker:This was my first jury
trial, my first opening.
Speaker:And so wanted to do a good
job. I think as a team,
Speaker:we all came together and talked about
what our themes and our theories and what
Speaker:we wanted to really highlight
throughout the trial.
Speaker:And so weaving that in through
the opening was very important.
Speaker:And then obviously we wanted
to establish credibility.
Speaker:So we wanted to have the evidence that
we knew was going to get in without
Speaker:showing too much of our hand because
we had a few things up our sleeves.
Speaker:So really preparing and practicing,
Speaker:I unfortunately lost my
voice the week before trial.
Speaker:So I spent the whole week
not really talking much,
Speaker:but the two weeks or the
few days before the trial,
Speaker:we met several times as a team. And so
went through the mock opening and got
Speaker:feedback, revised, and
then washed runs for.
Speaker:Repeat.
Speaker:And what I would say about that is the
way that it was laid out that opening,
Speaker:organization behind it
and all of the beats,
Speaker:it just felt like perfect and
it was so accessible for a jury.
Speaker:They can consume that easily.
Speaker:It was just broken down
so plain and clearly,
Speaker:and I just think it was just so effective.
Speaker:Well, how much time did you have
for your opening? Were you limited?
Speaker:I think we had 40 minutes,
40 minutes per side,
Speaker:and I didn't use the whole 40 minutes.
So yeah, we had a lot of time.
Speaker:The one real advantage I sense
from this case is the story
Speaker:is so compelling from the get
go just factually. You sit down,
Speaker:you tell jurors like, "Let me tell
you what happened in this case.
Speaker:This isn't a rear end car crash case.
Speaker:This is a fascinating
on the edge of your seat
Speaker:story." And Ciara, I want to ask you,
Speaker:because I think I heard you say
that strategically you withheld
Speaker:some really good facts from your
opening with the thought being,
Speaker:and I'm projecting here,
Speaker:with the thought being that your case
gets better in trial than the opening
Speaker:statement, is that accurate and
was that strategic on your part?
Speaker:Well, there were just some things
that we couldn't bring up in trial.
Speaker:For example, Officer Ramos
pled guilty to a crime. Well,
Speaker:that's impeachment evidence,
Speaker:so we couldn't really bring
that in through the opening.
Speaker:What we could do is say that our
clients were victims of a crime.
Speaker:So we had talked about that. That had
come up a little bit in voir dire too,
Speaker:just because the story had
been pretty publicized.
Speaker:So several jurors knew
about what had happened.
Speaker:And then I think I heard on
the first part of the podcast,
Speaker:the flashlight story,
Speaker:we weren't highlighting that
in the opening by any means,
Speaker:but it's certainly something that Omeed
was able to bring up in the closing.
Speaker:And then just things like that. The
case and the story is so relatable.
Speaker:Anybody could be an innocent person
coming out of the bar early in their
Speaker:20s. And so really just
without saying it highlighted,
Speaker:this happened to six people.
Speaker:It could have been anyone in Denver
and it could have been a lot worse.
Speaker:Crist, talk to us a little bit
about your thoughts in voir dire.
Speaker:Did you find that the panel
was really on your side?
Speaker:What were your fears and what did you
encounter when you actually did voir dire
Speaker:here?
Speaker:So we went in there with the strategy
of finding liberal gun owners.
Speaker:So basically that was
the strategy going in.
Speaker:And so what I was trying to do is to
get information from the jury about what
Speaker:they knew about guns, what
they knew about gun safety.
Speaker:And we did find a few that
did know about gun safety and
Speaker:just with the idea that if they're
going to know about gun safety,
Speaker:they're going to realize how
incredibly reckless this officer was.
Speaker:And so that was very important to
have them on there in that regard.
Speaker:And then also, saying liberal,
Speaker:we don't want anyone that is
like completely pro- police,
Speaker:but I don't think this was an
anti-police case because I think this was
Speaker:more about holding someone accountable.
Speaker:So it wasn't necessarily I was looking
for someone that is anti-police,
Speaker:but anyone can be, like Ciara
was just saying a second ago,
Speaker:anyone can be in that position coming
out of the club and then you have a
Speaker:reckless officer shooting into a crowd.
So that was kind of the
Speaker:analysis that I was going off of.
Speaker:And maybe this is a
question for you, Omeed.
Speaker:Was this a lack of training
issue or how did it
Speaker:come to be?
Speaker:So sort of assuming that
reputable use of force experts
Speaker:say, don't fire into a crowd, don't
fire, know what's behind you, et cetera.
Speaker:So was this a lack of training?
Was this a rogue officer?
Speaker:What was the theme as it relates
to those concepts at trial?
Speaker:Throughout trial and in closing, we tried
to point to every bucket of evidence.
Speaker:And so training was one component.
Speaker:We said it was hard to say that
he wasn't trained on this topic.
Speaker:Basically what we focused
on was policies. I mean,
Speaker:training aside what was most clear
that the policy said don't do this.
Speaker:And I don't even have to get into the
nitty gritty of what you discussed in the
Speaker:academy or in field training about
how these policies apply, et cetera.
Speaker:Anybody can read this and
understand that this isn't allowed.
Speaker:But really we zoomed out and I think
this is maybe what was most persuasive to
Speaker:the jurors was that this is common
sense, folks. Guns are dangerous.
Speaker:And if you're going to wield a gun and
we're going to give you the power of a
Speaker:badge and a gun to police our streets,
Speaker:you need to use your common sense.
And that's at the baseline.
Speaker:We don't even need to look at policies
or training to figure that out.
Speaker:And so I think a common theme
throughout the case was just jurors,
Speaker:we want you to assess,
Speaker:is this the type of policing that
you want just based on what you know?
Speaker:Bring your own experiences into
this courtroom and ask yourself,
Speaker:is this the kind of
decisions that you want made?
Speaker:And that ultimately proved to be a
pretty useful way of doing it because we
Speaker:didn't have to get into detailed
subjects about what happened during the
Speaker:simulations.
Speaker:We could just ask jurors to use their
own everyday understanding of what to do.
Speaker:So I have a question factually,
Speaker:because my understanding is
that the video from the various
Speaker:body cam and other video,
Speaker:that it looked like the
suspect was trying to throw his
Speaker:firearm away when he was shot or not.
So I'm just kind of curious factually,
Speaker:could someone explain,
Speaker:was that clear what was going on or was
there an argument to be made that that
Speaker:suspect was going for
his gun and therefore
Speaker:use of deadly force would be
justified irrespective of who's
Speaker:behind the suspect?
Speaker:Yeah. This became a topic in the case
that we kind of had to pivot as the case
Speaker:went on. As a very basic
factual matter, it does appear,
Speaker:if you watch the video in slow motion
that this person is taking a gun out of
Speaker:their waistband and throwing it away,
Speaker:not taking it out of their
waistband to threaten the officers,
Speaker:shoot at the officers or shoot into a
crowd, but then became the question of,
Speaker:okay,
Speaker:assume that that's difficult to see or
to comprehend in the moment. What now?
Speaker:And we sort of attacked that big
issue in a couple different ways.
Speaker:The first was that apparently the jurors
agreed with this evidence was that
Speaker:this particular officer,
Officer Ramos, shot very, very,
Speaker:very late in the sequence. He shot
after this person had drawn a gun,
Speaker:thrown it away,
Speaker:and was in fact already falling on the
ground. And so that's problem number one,
Speaker:is that we're not really even asking
this officer whether he thought he was
Speaker:brandishing a weapon in the moment
that he pulled it out of his pocket,
Speaker:because that's not when the
officer shot. The second one,
Speaker:this was the big pivot.
The second one was, okay,
Speaker:let's assume a world where you think
a person is actually drawing a gun,
Speaker:but there's a crowd behind him.
What do we want our officers to do?
Speaker:And we conceded to the jury that there
might be the difficult case someday
Speaker:down the line where a person is
actively shooting into a crowd or
Speaker:at police officers and an officer needs
to stop the threat and the officer needs
Speaker:to accept the fact that their
bullets might hit the target,
Speaker:really an active shooter, and also
might hit the people in the background.
Speaker:That might be a case out there,
but that wasn't this case. Really,
Speaker:in closing,
Speaker:we said something to the effect of
this is not columbine because their
Speaker:expert tried to make it like columbine.
Speaker:He even used the word
"Columbine." We said,
Speaker:"This is not Columbine." Yeah,
Speaker:and we even said something to the effect
that an officer can't be the first
Speaker:person to shoot into a crowd.
Speaker:There needs to be some other strategies,
Speaker:some other tactics deployed before an
officer is the first person to shoot into
Speaker:a crowd and say, "Ah, it
was okay for me to do that.
Speaker:That can't be the result
that we're okay with.
Speaker:" So this case was not the most
difficult case on the planet,
Speaker:which at some point will present itself
and some other brilliant litigators I'm
Speaker:sure will figure out how to deal with it.
Speaker:So, and again, factually,
because you reminded me,
Speaker:was there another police
officer that had a more ...
Speaker:Didn't have an angle where there was no
one behind the suspect who had fired at
Speaker:the suspect first and then Officer
Ramos then with a different
Speaker:unsafe angle fired after that officer.
Speaker:Is that factually what happened?
Speaker:Yes. There were two other officers who
fired with the brick back wall as their
Speaker:backdrop and then Officer Ramos who
fired with the crowd of people in his
Speaker:backdrop.
Speaker:See, to me, that's such a complicated ...
Speaker:Because that sort of answered my other
question of you can't really argue that
Speaker:the police officers shouldn't have ...
Speaker:That the fact that the suspect was
throwing the gun away meant no one should
Speaker:have fired because you've got two
officers that had a clear line of
Speaker:sight that did fire.
Speaker:And I'm assuming you weren't critical
of those officers firing at the
Speaker:suspect. It was Officer Ramos'
firing with the backdrop.
Speaker:Do I have that factually correct?
Speaker:Our lawsuit was mostly against Officer
Ramos because only his bullets could have
Speaker:injured the six people in the background,
Speaker:and so it didn't make sense for us
to be critical of the officers who
Speaker:shot Mr. Waddy.
Speaker:Certainly there are some critiques that
just wasn't the focus of our client's
Speaker:case.
Speaker:Yeah. And it felt like more of a side
issue to even involve the other officers.
Speaker:And the defense actually tried.
Speaker:They were trying to pin it on the other
officers and it seemed a bit ridiculous
Speaker:when they were saying one of the officers
that was dead in front of him could
Speaker:have somehow fired all the
way to the right of them.
Speaker:And I think one of the best lines came
from Omeed when they were trying to pin
Speaker:it on his wife.
Speaker:And Omeed asked the
defendant, he was like,
Speaker:"Does your wife know you're out here
saying all this about her about me?
Speaker:" And I think that was one of the
best lines of the trial. So yeah,
Speaker:he was trying to pin it on
everyone, including his wife.
Speaker:I'm not following. Wait, so
Ramos' wife was ... I got lost.
Speaker:Yeah, I'll give you some background.
Speaker:So Ramos was at the
time partnered with his
Speaker:fiance,
Speaker:then his fiance was also a police
officer and on the scene that night
Speaker:and a shooting officer.
And so during the trial,
Speaker:Officer Ramos' testimony was that one of
the bullets or two of the bullets that
Speaker:hit the bystanders could
have come from his partner,
Speaker:his fiance at the time.
Speaker:He didn't call her to the
stand to testify to that point.
Speaker:She was not called at all at trial.
Speaker:And so the question during
the cross of Ramos was,
Speaker:"Does your wife know that you're here
pointing the finger at her saying that she
Speaker:shot these people?
Speaker:" And it did garner a
chuckle out of a few jurors
Speaker:and some co-counsel.
Speaker:Well, what was his answer to that?
And did you know that that was ...
Speaker:Was that a planned question or
did it just spur the moment?
Speaker:That was not a planned question.
And his answer, I believe,
Speaker:was that him and his wife had actually
not ever talked about anything related to
Speaker:this case or his criminal
conviction. So no, she didn't know.
Speaker:It is such a fascinating
factual scenario because
Speaker:it strikes me that how you
framed your case is so critically
Speaker:important to the success
that you received.
Speaker:And just to remind our listeners,
this was what, 20 million.
Speaker:I mean,
Speaker:and I do want to ask you questions
about your ask and the punitive damage
Speaker:component of it, but the overall
verdict was like $20 million plus,
Speaker:is that right?
Speaker:It was 19.75 million.
Speaker:So how did you, Crist,
no focus groups here,
Speaker:but was it obvious that given
the facts that I've heard
Speaker:displayed here, that
the rule, if you will,
Speaker:the rule you never violate is you
don't fire when there's people
Speaker:behind. And was it intentional,
A, did I get that rule right?
Speaker:And B,
Speaker:was the intent to create the simplest
rule that was violated here to make it
Speaker:as simple as you could for the jury?
Speaker:Yeah, agreed.
Speaker:And that is a basic rule that you don't
fire when there's people behind target.
Speaker:You're supposed to know your
target, and that is a basic rule.
Speaker:And I think that was very easy
for the jury to understand.
Speaker:And when they're going back to deliberate,
Speaker:that's just a basic rule
that they can follow.
Speaker:And the case pretty much
boiled down to that.
Speaker:It didn't matter like what they
were trying to throw into the pop.
Speaker:It's the basic sense that you have to
know your target and know what's behind
Speaker:your target.
Speaker:Who crossed their use of force? Omeed,
Speaker:was that you crossing the
person who referenced Columbine,
Speaker:their use of force expert?
Speaker:No, it was Ciara and our
co-counsel, Tony Biorst,
Speaker:who represented two of the six victims.
Speaker:So Ciara, what the defendant's
use of force expert,
Speaker:did they concede the rule that you don't
fire when there are people behind or
Speaker:did they try to tap dance around that?
Speaker:They tap danced around it quite a bit.
Speaker:This is the expert that tried
to liken the case to Columbine,
Speaker:which for a Colorado
case and Colorado jurors,
Speaker:I think that that was very
alarming to the jurors and lost
Speaker:some credibility. The
facts weren't the same.
Speaker:And so the expert tried to liken
it to a Columbine situation,
Speaker:which it just wasn't,
Speaker:but he wouldn't concede the office
Officer Ramos did anything wrong.
Speaker:And I think that that's where the
experts really came into play.
Speaker:We had our own policing expert,
Speaker:but we also had an expert that did
the ballistics and really did a great
Speaker:job of explaining the ballistics.
Speaker:So while their use of force expert
wouldn't acknowledge that you can't shoot
Speaker:into a crowd,
Speaker:the common sense really came into
play and the jurors used that
Speaker:common sense. And the
police testimony also was,
Speaker:even though not designated
as expert testimony,
Speaker:the other officers who were there
who testified that you wouldn't shoot
Speaker:into a crowd or you have to know your
backdrop really played a critical role and
Speaker:I think really hurt the credibility
of the expert who simply would not
Speaker:acknowledge that this was a bad shoot.
Speaker:So what I'm hearing you say,
which sounds really important,
Speaker:is that your theme was you
don't shoot into a crowd,
Speaker:essentially, know your backdrop. And
through every witness that testified,
Speaker:you were able to get support for that
theme and raise it every single time.
Speaker:Basically every witness in the
case testified. Is that right?
Speaker:Absolutely.
Speaker:The first nine words out of my mouth
in opening is you do not shoot into a
Speaker:crowd. You do not shoot into
a crowd. It's common sense.
Speaker:It's basic police practices.
Speaker:And we expect our trained
police officers to know this.
Speaker:We expect any person who
owns and uses a gun to know
Speaker:this and to not shoot into a crowd.
Speaker:Did one of you all cross-examine
Officer Ramos at trial?
Speaker:That's Omeed. I did, yeah.
Speaker:So Omeed,
Speaker:what did Officer Ramos say when
confronted with that rule, if you will?
Speaker:Is it to say, "Well, yeah, that's a rule,
Speaker:but there's always exceptions,"
something like that?
Speaker:He did. Yeah.
Speaker:The testimony to synthesize it was
that that rule doesn't always apply
Speaker:to police officers.
Speaker:And that's one of those answers that
you get and you just let it sit.
Speaker:You don't dig into it and try to eat
too much off of it. You just let it sit.
Speaker:It didn't match up with what virtually
every other witness was saying.
Speaker:That type of testimony to
sort of deny the obvious was a
Speaker:common theme in his testimony.
Speaker:And I was often faced
with the challenge of,
Speaker:do I get one more question in
right now and sort of bite at this?
Speaker:And I tried to exercise restraint and
just let the outrageous statements float
Speaker:because there were several.
Speaker:I think another one of the questions
that you all covered on the last podcast,
Speaker:which was really a highlight
for me was asking him,
Speaker:"What's the worst backdrop than a
crowd of people? " And he said, "Well,
Speaker:there could be senators, presidents,
and very important people.
Speaker:" And in closing, I get
to say, according to him,
Speaker:these six people seated behind
me are not senators, presidents,
Speaker:are very important people.
Speaker:And there were a lot of opportunities
like that where you got this sort of,
Speaker:he really just will not admit
the easy answer and that's okay.
Speaker:The jury will see right through it.
Speaker:There was a temptation often to
try to really hammer things home,
Speaker:but it was just, I mean, he kind
of made the case for us at times.
Speaker:And I think an important part was the
jury. None of them are presidents,
Speaker:senators, and so- called important people.
Speaker:So that means they can get shot too.
Speaker:And Omit,
Speaker:I'm putting myself in your shoes
and imagining the restraint
Speaker:and imagining what would be going through
my mind when you're given an answer
Speaker:like that.
Speaker:And was it obvious to you
when that answer was given
Speaker:that it would have been worse if there
were presidents or what have you behind
Speaker:it? Did you ask any follow up
or did you just let it sit?
Speaker:Talk to us a little bit about
what was going through your brain.
Speaker:At that very moment,
Speaker:when you get this gift of an answer
that you could not have contemplated,
Speaker:that that was going to be the response.
What was your thought process?
Speaker:Yeah, I had read a book. I hadn't
attended a conference like Ciara. Ciara,
Speaker:that was Anita conference or?
Speaker:Yeah, I attended Anita.
Speaker:Would you recommend that
resource to everyone out there?
Speaker:Yeah, it was great. I learned a lot.
Speaker:I got to learn from a lot of
really skilled trial attorneys.
Speaker:I did the one that was here in
Denver and it was there for a week,
Speaker:pick up on a lot of things that
you can improve on and then
Speaker:really you put those skills into
practice. So I would highly recommend it,
Speaker:particularly for people
who are a little bit ...
Speaker:I'm a little bit more reserved
and shy in my personal life.
Speaker:So it did really wonders for my
confidence going into a trial setting.
Speaker:And if conferences aren't your jam,
Speaker:I had read a book called
Winning It Cross by Shane Reed.
Speaker:And I'm also sort of a nerd when it
comes to trials that are out there in the
Speaker:world.
Speaker:I try to watch a lot of media like this
podcast to sort of stay up to date on
Speaker:who's doing some great lawyering out there
and what can we learn and that it's a
Speaker:skill. It's something that you have
to develop. And in that moment,
Speaker:what was coming to my mind was, "Yeah,
this is an outrageous statement.
Speaker:This is what Shane Reid
calls an outrageous statement
and you need to let this
Speaker:one fly." And so I think a lot of
times some of the stuff you learn isn't
Speaker:intuitive. And I think people just
assume that good trial lawyers,
Speaker:like the two who are with me today
just become good trial lawyers because
Speaker:they're born with it,
Speaker:but a lot of the stuff is skills that
you have to learn and master. And I
Speaker:think in that moment it
was a good test. Okay,
Speaker:here's an opportunity to
make the wrong choice,
Speaker:the tactically wrong
choice or the right one.
Speaker:And I was lucky enough to make
the right one in that moment.
Speaker:And I know we didn't ask
any follow up. In fact,
Speaker:I think I moved to the next chapter,
Speaker:which was about like where he
grew up or something like that.
Speaker:Yeah. Kudos to you. I can
think back to my younger self.
Speaker:I can still remember one of the first
trials I did as a civil trial lawyer was
Speaker:after I was a prosecutor for five years
and then did a civil trial and it was a
Speaker:med mal trial.
Speaker:And I just beat up this defense expert
so much that I'm confident we lost the
Speaker:case because of it.
Speaker:And so you come back to your
situation where you're given this
Speaker:gift and just the wisdom
to recognize that gift in
Speaker:the moment and not try to win because
I feel like our natural instincts,
Speaker:whenever we're even arguing with
our spouse or whatever, it's like,
Speaker:I need to win this argument,
Speaker:but to let jurors reach their own
conclusion without shoving it down their
Speaker:throats,
Speaker:I feel like is the biggest piece of wisdom
that I've come to in recent years as
Speaker:a trial lawyer is nobody wants to be told
what to think. And so you have to let
Speaker:them reach that own conclusion and you
get a gift like that and you just let it
Speaker:sit and you move on to your next
chapter of cross shows much,
Speaker:much, much wisdom. So kudos to you.
Speaker:Talk to us a little bit about how you
went about structuring your cross.
Speaker:You mentioned chapters.
Speaker:Did you have various chapters that
you could sort of pivot on the fly
Speaker:depending on how various answers went?
Just talk to our younger listeners,
Speaker:if you will, about how you went about
preparing your cross-examinations.
Speaker:Yeah. The advice that I got,
which was very good advice,
Speaker:was that each chapter
needs to have a point.
Speaker:And that point should
be as basic as possible.
Speaker:And really as I was preparing the cross,
Speaker:I would have a point that I
needed to make. For instance,
Speaker:training requires knowing
your backdrop and beyond.
Speaker:Then as I was going through
preparing the cross,
Speaker:the points became actually narrower and
narrower and would separate often into
Speaker:their own chapters.
Speaker:And so a chapter on know your target
and beyond turned actually into two
Speaker:chapters. One was about know your target,
Speaker:and the second one was about
know it's beyond. And so really,
Speaker:I think as I was preparing the cross,
Speaker:the big takeaway that I had was
that it can take 25 minutes,
Speaker:if it needs to, to just
establish a really basic point.
Speaker:You're not going to win the case in one
chapter of your cross. You're going to
Speaker:establish one piece. And really that
was the goal, was to take this witness,
Speaker:this defendant, and at
each stage of his cross,
Speaker:just prove one thing that's helpful
to our case or destroys his.
Speaker:And so we tried to be pretty methodical
as we were going through the process.
Speaker:And I think that was really what
our entire trial team did. I mean,
Speaker:we were scheduled to go for two weeks
and I think the trial was done in like
Speaker:nine or 10 days because all of us
Speaker:pretty effectively managed to just
boil this thing down to what we needed.
Speaker:Let's not start quibbling with these
witnesses in a way that's going to make us
Speaker:lose credibility.
Speaker:Let's just get right down to it
and then ask the jury to decide.
Speaker:So that was our strategy.
Speaker:I love that.
Speaker:And I love what you said
that every chapter has to
have a point and that as you
Speaker:were preparing, those points
became narrower and narrower.
Speaker:Did you as a team engage
in any role playing
Speaker:where you would practice your cross and
others would sort of assume the role?
Speaker:Just really wondering
for younger listeners,
Speaker:what sort of practical
trial prep advice for what
Speaker:you all did in this trial?
Speaker:And I'll throw this out to the group and
maybe I'll ask each one of you as far
Speaker:from a trial preparation standpoint,
Speaker:what really worked that you
learned in this case? And Crist,
Speaker:I'll start with you.
Speaker:What was the one thing as far as
trial prep that you found was very
Speaker:effective here?
Speaker:So as far as preparing for our client,
Speaker:what I wanted to do was to get his
emotional story out to the jury.
Speaker:I wanted the jury to see him
as a person before they saw
Speaker:him as a victim. So I
walked him through his life,
Speaker:what he was doing.
Speaker:And there was a funny story about like
what happened to him right before he was
Speaker:shot, where he's walking up on a girl
and then he's about to talk to her,
Speaker:he sees her, he gets scared.
Speaker:And if he didn't get scared
and started talking to her,
Speaker:he probably wouldn't have gotten,
wouldn't have been in the line of fire.
Speaker:But we had to bring that out because
again, that's a very human emotion.
Speaker:Walking up on a girl, you see her and
you get fearful and you walk away.
Speaker:So that's very humid.
Speaker:So I wanted to bring that part out
and then also show his injuries
Speaker:and what was going on before and after
he was shot. And then that was like the
Speaker:same with the doctor. So I
also had to cross the doctor.
Speaker:I didn't want him to start
spouting any kind of medical
Speaker:information as to show how smart he was.
Speaker:I just wanted to keep it very simple just
to show this is not my client's doctor
Speaker:and that the doctor was paid by defendant
Ramos. So again, to keep it simple,
Speaker:and I didn't want to ask him too many
things that I didn't know the answer to
Speaker:because he starts talking
about medical information.
Speaker:I'm not going to know anything about that.
Speaker:And then I'm looking at the jury like,
Speaker:and then this guy is seeming
like a remarkable person.
Speaker:And the doctor was very, very
nice. He was a very good person,
Speaker:so I didn't want to like poke
him too much. So I was like,
Speaker:"I have to temper myself to come across
like that. " So those are some of the
Speaker:things that I picked up. Yeah.
Speaker:And that was something you
had contemplated in advance.
Speaker:So you sort of knew when you're
cross examining the defense doctor,
Speaker:"I don't want to poke this bear.
I know what I want to accomplish.
Speaker:I want to get in, get out.
Speaker:" And you had prepared that in advance
and that's something that you found to be
Speaker:effective.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And I didn't know how appealing he was
going to be because he came across as
Speaker:someone that I would listen
to and that I would like.
Speaker:So I didn't want to be annoying
and the jury may like him,
Speaker:so I don't want to interrupt that.
Speaker:So just wanted to keep it basic and civil.
Speaker:Civil that you mentioned civil,
Speaker:how important is it in this
profession to in front of the
Speaker:jury be civil that you've seen, Crist?
Speaker:I think it's important because I think
again, presentation is very important.
Speaker:Character and personality is important.
And again, that goes back to like,
Speaker:we were talking about politics earlier.
Speaker:Presentation and personality
is very important.
Speaker:So if you're going to come across like
a jerk to someone that people like,
Speaker:again,
Speaker:that's a reflection on you and it's a
reflection on you not reading the room.
Speaker:So that's what I was looking
at him and I was like, "Okay,
Speaker:this is a very nice guy and if I come
across like a bulldog coming at him,
Speaker:then it's going to make me look foolish.
Speaker:It's going to make him look great and
then it's going to hurt our clients as.
Speaker:Well." Wow. Ciara,
Speaker:what's the one thing in your trial
prep in this trial did you think really
Speaker:worked well?
Speaker:I think collaboration. This is
the first time Omeed, Crist,
Speaker:and I have gone to trial with
Siddhartha and John and the
Speaker:attorneys on the case.
Speaker:And so the collaboration and the trial
experience with one another was really
Speaker:great. We worked well together,
but we worked differently.
Speaker:And so really getting to figure out
different people's styles and how to make
Speaker:it work together.
Speaker:There were several times in the weeks
leading up that Omeed would come in and
Speaker:work out part of his cross.
Speaker:And I was Officer Ramos more than I was
Ciara in those weeks leading up to the
Speaker:trial. The story's easy to
tell. They're very great people
Speaker:and a terrible thing happened to them.
Speaker:They were people out celebrating
an anniversary, a birthday.
Speaker:One of our clients who got shot
was very endearing and going up
Speaker:to a girl and then getting scared.
Speaker:Another person who got
shot was calling his
Speaker:sister to make sure that she took his
mom to church the next day because that's
Speaker:something that he did every Sunday.
These are real people with real families.
Speaker:And so telling that story was very easy.
Speaker:So it didn't take as much preparation
because when you're doing a direct,
Speaker:you're not the star, the person
you're doing the direct is the star.
Speaker:And so it was really easy to
implement that. But I think overall,
Speaker:I think the collaboration is what I took
away from it and just being there to
Speaker:bounce ideas off of each other.
Speaker:We're at the office until 3:00
AM working out the closing and
Speaker:starting it. "Okay, oh, I don't
really quite like that piece of it.
Speaker:Let's revise it here. Okay,
Speaker:now let's put this into really
perspective for the jury and I don't
Speaker:mean then delivered it excellently.
Speaker:"So it was a really fun
trial You get a taste of it,
Speaker:you want to keep doing it, but
it was great for our clients too,
Speaker:obviously with the outcome.
Speaker:Yeah. Omeed,
Speaker:what was the one piece of the trial
preparation piece that you think
Speaker:was highly effective here?
Speaker:I think giving yourself enough time and
if you have the privilege of being at a
Speaker:fantastic law firm, when
it's trial prep time,
Speaker:people tend to take other things
off your plate so you can focus.
Speaker:And that became critical both with
respect to the facts and the law.
Speaker:I can think of dozens of times during
the case when a factual piece would come
Speaker:up that they thought was important. And
as our entire team, we knew, no, no, no,
Speaker:we knew how to deal with that. And the
only way, and the same with the law.
Speaker:In fact,
Speaker:I can think of a particular dispute
about a effective date of a particular
Speaker:statute that they thought they had
us on and we said," No, no, no.
Speaker:We've looked into this. It applies
and it applies to this case.
Speaker:"And the only way that those
little tidbits which become so
Speaker:important during a trial come to your
mind is that you've given yourself enough
Speaker:time. It's like preparing for a
depo. If you start the night before,
Speaker:you just don't have enough time to
let it sink in and to develop more
Speaker:complex thoughts about it and to
sort of shift your own understanding.
Speaker:So I think one thing we did really well
was everybody was just sitting with
Speaker:it, listening to it, feeling it,
sort of trying to figure out,
Speaker:what am I missing? What are my
blind spots? How can I pivot?
Speaker:And I think we did an
excellent job of that. So time,
Speaker:you just got to set it aside and
just got to do it. There's no ...
Speaker:I think Abraham Lincoln as a quote,
Speaker:you can't ignore the drudgeries
of the law is something like it.
Speaker:You got to sit with it. There's
nothing else you can do,
Speaker:but just sit with it for a long
time and it'll come to you.
Speaker:What you're saying really lands because
there's just periods of this job that
Speaker:are a grind.
Speaker:And when you look at a trial like you
all did and someone comes in and looks at
Speaker:how seamless it was, how the outcome,
Speaker:how much fun it looked
like being in trial,
Speaker:they see the top of the mountain and
they don't see the climb that it took to
Speaker:get there and get ready.
Speaker:So that's really lands with me because I
feel like there's just times in the ...
Speaker:It's almost like you have to
embrace the suck at times,
Speaker:whatever it is and it's set
aside time and do the grind.
Speaker:So I really appreciate
your perspective on that,
Speaker:of setting aside time,
Speaker:making sure that things come
up legally and factually
Speaker:you're able to hit those things head on.
Speaker:Talk to me a little bit in our ...
Speaker:We got about a few minutes left here.
I'm curious about the punitive damage
Speaker:component of this. So, and Omi,
Speaker:did you do both closings or did you do
first closing and then one of the other
Speaker:lawyers did the rebuttal close?
Speaker:I did closing and rebuttal.
Speaker:Okay. How did you approach ...
Speaker:Because I'm assuming that the punitive
damage component consumed a lot of your
Speaker:thought about how to present that
and how to argue that with the jury.
Speaker:What did you come up with and
what was your strategy with that?
Speaker:Yeah, the strategy was actually
fairly straightforward.
Speaker:There had been this criminal conviction
that was percolating throughout the
Speaker:entire case and would
come up at various times.
Speaker:And one tact that they took
to minimize the meaning
Speaker:of that criminal conviction was
that it didn't come with jail time.
Speaker:It wasn't a felony. It
was a sweetheart deal.
Speaker:He had to take that deal
basically because it was so good.
Speaker:That's why he pled guilty, not because
he was actually guilty of the crime.
Speaker:That was their approach.
Speaker:And so we flipped that on its head for
punitive damages. We said," Look folks,
Speaker:if you're as enraged as we are,
here's what you should note.
Speaker:This guy has never been punished for
this conduct. He told you outright,
Speaker:I got a sweetheart deal
when it came to the crime.
Speaker:"So we said," Now's your opportunity.
Speaker:You're the only people who have the
opportunity as of today to punish this
Speaker:defendant for that conduct.
And unfortunately,
Speaker:the way you do it in this
setting is through money.
Speaker:"And so really all we said was take
whatever compensatory damages you award
Speaker:and just double it.
Speaker:Just add another double on top to
punish him in a way that he's never been
Speaker:punished. So our strategy
wasn't that complicated.
Speaker:And I think actually the work to
get punitive damages comes long
Speaker:before the request itself.
Speaker:It's got to sit on a good
foundation of these jurors are angry
Speaker:maybe. This is beyond just liability.
Speaker:This is they are frustrated with
both the defendant and his conduct.
Speaker:And so I think all of the pieces that
we had set up throughout the trial,
Speaker:including those outrageous
statements that we talked about,
Speaker:sort of led into that final request. And
that's the only way that it's credible.
Speaker:If you've got a jury that's thinking this
is a fifty fifty case and I'm up there
Speaker:saying," Punish him, we've lost.
It's not going to happen.
Speaker:"So I think the work to get there
was long before the actual ask.
Speaker:Can you talk to us just for a little
bit about your preparation for your
Speaker:closings since you did both
closings, did you think,
Speaker:did you plan out ahead what you expected
to do in your rebuttal close and what
Speaker:did you do to prepare and
plan for your first close?
Speaker:Yeah, this was with the help of our team.
Speaker:I guess the first thing
was throughout the trial,
Speaker:I was drafting an outline as big
pieces of evidence would come in and
Speaker:testimony would come in, the
outline was already started.
Speaker:And then I'd say about two days before
when it became clear that we were going
Speaker:to close on X day,
Speaker:the outline started to turn into
something a little more clear.
Speaker:And then really the night before
we were to deliver closings,
Speaker:we spent from the end of trial that
day until 3:00 AM with the entire
Speaker:team preparing a presentation
and also just until
Speaker:my eyes were about to fall asleep
and I was about to just pass out
Speaker:on the concrete floor of our office,
Speaker:just saying things over and over and
over until they came out to the picture
Speaker:that we were trying to capture. And even
I drove home that night and there's a
Speaker:light right before my house that
sometimes doesn't turn green.
Speaker:And I sat at that light not realizing
that I was sitting at that light at red
Speaker:light that was never going to turn
green for 15 minutes saying part of
Speaker:the closing out loud before realizing, oh,
Speaker:I have to run this to get home or else
I'm going to be here until trial the next
Speaker:day. And then in terms of organizing it,
Speaker:we just followed the
jury instructions.That's
ultimately the decision that
Speaker:jurors need to make. And if you're
presenting it in any other way,
Speaker:I think we would all posit that you're
doing it wrong because they need a
Speaker:roadmap.
Speaker:And so we just roadmapped them and
highlighted the evidence for each of the
Speaker:elements that they needed to decide and
got them there and tried to stay awake
Speaker:during the process.
Speaker:And that was amazing because it was
till like three in the morning and then
Speaker:eight in the morning he's giving that
closing and it was an amazing closing.
Speaker:So the judge had to admonish someone in
the back because they made noise after
Speaker:it. What? That was great because someone
was like, woo, in the background-.
Speaker:Wait, wait. I got to hear this story.
I've never heard of such a thing.
Speaker:So tell us the story. The judge had
to admonish a juror for making noise?
Speaker:Yeah. So someone had made a noise in
the background as soon as it was done.
Speaker:It felt like a mic drop situation.
And so there was someone in the crowd,
Speaker:it was like, woo. And then the
judge got upset and was like,
Speaker:"We will not have that in the courtroom."
Wow. It was truly a great closing.
Speaker:It reminded me of, I don't know, have
you seen the movie JFK? Of course. Yeah.
Speaker:So that closing that Kevin Costner
gave, it was kind of like that,
Speaker:not as emotional and we
actually did win unlike
Speaker:him. It was very well put together.
Speaker:Though.
Speaker:Am I stating the obvious that it sure
sounds like you all had an immense amount
Speaker:of fun trying this case?
Speaker:Yeah, it was challenging. The injuries
in this case were really, it was awful.
Speaker:Some of the evidence that
came in was horrible,
Speaker:but obviously those aren't our injuries.
We can do our best to sympathize,
Speaker:but we can't really empathize because
none of us have been there and we did have
Speaker:fun doing the prep work, but
it did feel very weighty.
Speaker:It did feel, I don't know how
you all felt after the trial,
Speaker:but it certainly felt like, "Holy smokes,
Speaker:what did I just go through?" That
was a lot. It was a lot. Yeah.
Speaker:I think as a lawyer, we
can see that it's fun,
Speaker:but we also take on the
weight of our clients.
Speaker:We are advocating and telling a
very personal story for these people
Speaker:who have suffered immensely and
their lives are forever changed.
Speaker:They can no longer go to the
bars or to the grocery store,
Speaker:couldn't leave their house
for a period of time.
Speaker:And so recognizing this very
real and personal harm and
Speaker:taking and telling a jury
this story, it was fun,
Speaker:but it was a lot and it felt
like a real responsibility.
Speaker:But I think that we set aside the
time and we put in the time to
Speaker:really make sure that we were doing
everything that we could to tell it in the
Speaker:best way. And I think that that
worked out to our client's benefit.
Speaker:And I think this trial was like a great
example of like why we became civil
Speaker:rights lawyers.
Speaker:It definitely felt like we were able to
like restore our clients like dignity.
Speaker:Wow.
Speaker:And it did feel like they
were relieved in a sense.
Speaker:And to me, that made a lot
of the hard work worth it.
Speaker:Yeah. I probably used the wrong
word fun. It's maybe rewarding.
Speaker:In the hindsight, you put
in all of this effort,
Speaker:you get a great result
for truly just clients
Speaker:that have gone through
something that, like you said,
Speaker:none of us can imagine
the sense of satisfaction
Speaker:must just be immense.
Speaker:And kudos to you all for
such an amazing result.
Speaker:And I want to thank you all for taking
time out of your very busy lives and
Speaker:professional careers to talk
with us. So Crist, Ciara, Omeed,
Speaker:thank you so much for appearing on this
program and congratulations to you and
Speaker:your clients for a truly
just result. Thank you.
Speaker:Thank you so much for having us.
Speaker:And good to finally meet you.
Yeah, it's great to meet you too.
Speaker:To our listeners, thank
you for listening in again.
Speaker:We'll be back next time with another
episode of the Colorado Trial Lawyer
Speaker:Connection podcast where we love to talk
with trial lawyers about what they do,
Speaker:what worked, what didn't work,
Speaker:and bring some of those real life
Colorado trial lawyer stories to life.
Speaker:So we'll see you all, hear you all
next time. Thanks for listening.
Speaker:Thank you for joining us.
Speaker:We hope you've gained valuable insights
and inspiration from today's courtroom
Speaker:warriors, and thank you
for being in the arena.
Speaker:Make sure to subscribe and join us next
time as we continue to dissect real
Speaker:cases and learn from
Colorado's top trial lawyers.
Speaker:Our mission is to empower
our legal community,
Speaker:helping us to become better trial lawyers
to effectively represent our clients.
Speaker:Keep your connection to Colorado's
best trial lawyers alive at
Speaker:www.thectlc.com.
