This book contains examples of effective and ineffective trial techniques that are seldom, if ever, taught in law schools. These examples are real, not hypothetical, and have been compiled from the author's experiences as: - A Navy JAG lawyer for three years; - A trial lawyer in practice for thirty years; and - A federal courtroom deputy for almost ten years. In this position, he was able to observe over eighty trials and contested hearings as a neutral observer and to discuss with jurors at the conclusion of trials to learn what they considered effective and ineffective trial techniques. MR. BRUESS graduated cum laude from both the University of Minnesota (1959) and the Indiana University School of Law (1963). From 1961-1962, he was a member of the Indiana Law Journal and was a Note Editor during the 1962-1963 school year. Upon graduation from law school, he was selected for membership in the Order of the Coif. Following the completion of Officer Candidate School, Mr. Bruess served as a legal officer with the Judge Advocate General Corps of the United States Navy from 1964-1967. From 1967-1997, Mr. Bruess was a trial lawyer with Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis, Indiana. From 1999-2008, he served as a courtroom deputy for the Honorable David F. Hamilton of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

"Reading this book would profit any advocate of any experience level. Judicious application of the advice contained in the book will make anyone a better advocate."-- Bob Dekle, Legal Skills Professor, University of Florida, and retired assistant state attorney.

In an ideal world, the laws of Congress--known as federal statutes--would always be clearly worded and easily understood by the judges tasked with interpreting them. But many laws feature ambiguous or even contradictory wording. How, then, should judges divine their meaning? Should they stick only to the text? To what degree, if any, should they consult aids beyond the statutes themselves? Are the purposes of lawmakers in writing law relevant? Some judges, such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe courts should look to the language of the statute and virtually nothing else. Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit respectfully disagrees. In Judging Statutes, Katzmann, who is a trained political scientist as well as a judge, argues that our constitutional system charges Congress with enacting laws; therefore, how Congress makes its purposes known through both the laws themselves and reliable accompanying materials should be respected. He looks at how the American government works, including how laws come to be and how various agencies construe legislation. He then explains the judicial process of interpreting and applying these laws through the demonstration of two interpretative approaches, purposivism (focusing on the purpose of a law) and textualism (focusing solely on the text of the written law). Katzmann draws from his experience to show how this process plays out in the real world, and concludes with some suggestions to promote understanding between the courts and Congress. When courts interpret the laws of Congress, they should be mindful of how Congress actually functions, how lawmakers signal the meaning of statutes, and what those legislators expect of courts construing their laws. The legislative record behind a law is in truth part of its foundation, and therefore merits consideration.

Surely one of the most intimidating moments in your professional life is standing before a judge and jurors the morning of your very first trial. This is no mock trial: the stakes are high, and your client is counting on you. Are you ready? Trial Advocacy Basics is a courtroom primer that helps both the novice advocate prepare for his first day in court and the practicing lawyer bring her skills in line with the most recent developments in trial advocacy. In the Second Edition of this law school classic, Molly Townes O'Brien and Gary Gildin provide the modern perspectives on both the style and substance of case analysis, case theory, cross-examination, impeachment, closing arguments, and presenting information using technologies. They break down the importance of finding a single factual story of the case, then explain how each aspect of the trial must contribute to that story. O'Brien and Gildin relate practical advice on every stage of trial preparation and practice in a straightforward manner, using memorable examples and anecdotes, colorful quotes, and humor to highlight each lesson.

The Anxious Lawyer provides a straightforward 8-week introductory program on meditation and mindfulness, created by lawyers for lawyers. The program draws on examples from Cho and Gifford's professional and personal lives to create an accessible and enjoyable entry into practices that can reduce anxiety, improve focus and clarity, and enrich the quality of life.

"Things I Didnt Learn in Medical School is a memoir and philosophical work based on the authors 45 years of practicing medicine. He discusses subjects not usually covered or emphasized in medical training with the goal of providing students and practitioners in the healthcare professions with practical advice on issues of morality, compassion, politics, and health. His experiences form the basis of his counsel, and he provides the reader with numerous stories to underline his points. Written in a relaxed tone, the book contains plenty of humor, common sense, and strong opinions.