by Joe Wilhelm Jr.
Staff Writer
The Jacksonville Bar Association’s annual Raymond Ehrlich Trial Advocacy Seminar Friday continued to honor a local legal leader by providing educational opportunities to the Jacksonville legal community.
It featured discussions about research, the board certification process for civil law, evidence as electronically stored information, effective demonstrative evidence strategies, advanced cross examination and preservation of error at trial.
The seminar also featured a judicial panel to discuss effective interaction with the jury and judiciary during a trial.
The program began nine years ago to honor former Florida Supreme Court Justice Raymond Ehrlich, who worked as an attorney in Jacksonville from 1946 until his appointment to the Florida Supreme Court in 1981. After Ehrlich reached mandatory retirement age for the court, he returned to Jacksonville and practiced law as a partner at Holland & Knight. He died in 2005.
The judicial panel included Senior U.S. District Judges Henry Lee Adams and Harvey Schlesinger, and Fourth Judicial Circuit Judges Karen Cole, Jack Schemer, Adrian Soud and Waddell Wallace.
The panel was asked about the mistakes that are made regarding voir dire examination of jurors. Voir dire is the oath administered to a proposed witness or juror by which he or she is sworn to speak the truth in an examination to determine his or her competence.
Cole suggested that attorneys pose their question to one juror instead of the whole group.
“That way you can get a real answer instead of people shaking their heads. Once you get that answer, see if you can start a conversation with other jurors to find out what people are thinking,” said Cole.
Adams hasn’t seen a value in the practice.
“For about 14 years I picked juries in state court (as an attorney). For a majority of those years I would think, ‘this is a waste of time.’ The attorney is just trying to impress the jurors,” said Adams.
“I am convinced that what lawyers did during that time wasn’t useful to anybody,” said Adams.
Another question was asked regarding whether the judges could read a jury and whether or not they could predict a jury’s response.
“I really don’t try to predict the outcomes, but it is one of the most exciting parts of the process,” said Wallace. “It’s one of the reasons we do what we do.”
Soud revealed that he enjoys trying to figure out who the foreman will be on the jury rather than the jury’s decision.
Schemer explained that the process is more difficult in the civil arena because the jury can ask witnesses questions, but the questions are what should be of interest to attorneys.
“You can get a good idea of what (the jurors) are thinking from those questions,” said Schemer.
Schlesinger said he believes juries have been doing a good job. “I have never overturned a jury verdict in 36 years of practice,” said Schlesinger. “I think they’ve done their jobs well.”
The panel was asked if, knowing what they know now, they would do anything differently with their lives as practicing attorneys.
“I would put aside the need to bill all the time and go into court and watch,” said Cole.
“I would have taken more time to ask questions of the older lawyers at the firm,” said Soud, who worked at Holland & Knight when Ehrlich was practicing there.
“I would have charged more money,” joked Schemer.
“I would’ve paid more attention to biology in high school and became a doctor,” said Adams.
356-2466