Reframe, Refocus, Win: A $2M Verdict Story with Toni Schlapprizzi

Voice Over (00:03):

Every trial lawyer knows that moment when you've built what feels like an airtight case, but you're still lying awake wondering, what will the jury actually think? Jury research was once a luxury, reserved for cases that could support a big data study build. Not anymore. Join trial lawyer and trial scientist, Alicia Campbell, an empirical legal scholar, Nick Sweitzer. As they break down the barriers between you and the minds of your jury, this is The Fred Files, produced and powered by LawPods.

‍

Alicia Campbell (00:36):

Hi, yeah. Welcome to The Fred Files. This is Alicia Campbell. I'm here with Nick Schweitzer. Hello. Yes, we are recovering from Jury Ball Madrid, which was awesome. Yes. What do you think? Oh,

‍

Nick Schweitzer (00:48):

It was fantastic. Oh, I loved it. It is so fun every time, twice Madrid, but it's ... I was worried it wasn't going to be as good as the first one because you go to the first one, everyone's like, "Oh, this is so amazing. This is the best conference." And then, yeah, I thought this was a little better even. What? I enjoyed ... Yeah. Well, you had the Real Madrid game. We had all this sort of ... I don't know. I don't know. I just really enjoyed it a lot.

‍

Alicia Campbell (01:14):

Dude, now that's like, oh wow, because I thought maybe when I got the second one out of the ... Because we worked on the second one and I was really worried. John was not as worried, but I was really worried. Will we have the same vibe? Can we put it together the same way? So now I'm just hearing more pressure. Can I do it a third time? There might not be a real Raal Madrid game. Although everybody I think said the RealMadrid game was better. Yeah, you missed it, Toni. The Real Madrid game instead of the tour of Bernabel. The flamenco was pretty good.

‍

Nick Schweitzer (01:43):

I was very surprised. Everyone had the what? Castanets?

‍

Alicia Campbell (01:46):

Yeah, Castanos.

‍

Nick Schweitzer (01:48):

And people, they got into it. The whole room got into it.

‍

Alicia Campbell (01:51):

Yeah, for sure. A lot

‍

Nick Schweitzer (01:52):

Of very powerful attorneys, flamenco dancing. So that was something.

‍

Alicia Campbell (01:58):

Yeah. No, you're right. It was fun. I was glad everybody that came and had a good time. It seemed like Madrid showed off. We had good weather. Well, that's very nice, Nick. Thanks. Toni's coming next year. She already told me. She's like, "Yeah, I'm in.

‍

Nick Schweitzer (02:10):

" Oh, really?

‍

Alicia Campbell (02:11):

Yeah. You and your husband should have a little week off from the kids.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (02:15):

Oh yes. Madrid. I don't know. I would love to. Sounds amazing. Maybe I'll put a few kids in my backpack or something. Yeah. We'll see.

‍

Alicia Campbell (02:23):

Yeah. It would be wonderful to have Tony Shaprizi in Madrid, but I'm very excited to have her on the podcast. She's phenomenal lawyer out of the Lou. What can I say?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (02:34):

Out of the Lou. Thank you, Alicia.

‍

Alicia Campbell (02:36):

And so we've worked together quite a bit, Tony. Because you guys and Chris Finney, I think, do the most out of St. Louis. I mean, we have a lot of St. Louis clients, but you guys are pretty good regulars about running your cases and you've done very well. You have a big verdict that we ran, the three of you together.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (02:52):

That was in 2022. So that was the 20 million, 25,000, which you all give us so much confidence. I think we started working with you and John though long before that. And in certain cases, it helped us give us the confidence to go in and tell the jury what the case was worth. Or in other cases that we needed to settle, to get them settled. But yeah, that was an amazing trial. One you'll always remember, the one from 2022 that actually finally was affirmed by the Supreme Court last May. So it was a long road and it was 19-year-old young man whose life was taken trucking case. But Craig and I, who worked together, my brother and I partnered up with our cousin, Chris Finney, who has his firm. He represented the surviving dad and we represented surviving mom. And yeah, you guys were instrumental in helping us.

‍

(03:42):

I mean, really, once I hear the numbers from you all sometimes, I can't just accept it. I'm like, I have to believe it. I remember dreaming about the case, dreaming about the number. And then at one point it hit my heart and I was like, "This is right." But I wasn't there. I was almost mad. I was like, "I'm not asking for that kind of number." And then it was like, no, this is the number. It wasn't even asking anymore. But yeah, you all are such good friends and you do such incredible work and give us the ability to go in there with confidence.

‍

Alicia Campbell (04:14):

I admire you so much, Tony. You're like this badass female lawyer who tries cases and she does it pregnant as if you don't have enough stuff going on. For me, I can't even imagine that. I think it's so admirable to just get out there and be like, "Hey, yeah, this is what it is. How would I go? " And trial's happening. It's amazing, Tony. It's amazing.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (04:38):

Well, thank you. I mean, you know as a woman, you don't know when you set a trial that there's going to be a baby coming. It's not exactly planned. The one in 2022, they were talking about a continuance and I was like, I remember looking at my cousin, Chris, and being like, "They cannot continue this case." It was like up to the very last, I think the baby came two weeks later. So it was like we need to try that case. But I have my family and I'm blessed with healthy ... I'm not sick when I'm pregnant. I just really, I've been given a lot. So it sounds hard when you're not doing it, but when I'm in the midst of it, I really feel like I'm given the grace to do it and the strength. Oh,

‍

Alicia Campbell (05:14):

That's very sweet. I mean, there's no man that's trying cases pregnant. I will.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (05:20):

No, they have lives. I tell people a lot. I love my husband, but it'd really be nice if I had a wife, but that's okay. That's a different podcast.

‍

Alicia Campbell (05:32):

Well, tell us a little bit about yourself, Tony.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (05:35):

Well, Alicia, you and I have gone back a long time, but I've been practicing for about 15 years now. I've always worked with my dad who to me is the consummate trial lawyer. He's still practicing. He's 91 now. And I work with my brother who's a year older than me. Craig always knew he wanted to be a trial lawyer. So we grew up with stories and we really just had the most incredible example you can imagine. And times have changed a lot, but my dad is the most civil, professional, but talented and humble guy. You can imagine. He tracks everyone to him and really cares about people and wants to know about them. And so we grew up learning about clients, praying for his clients. Faith is a big part of our lives. And I came to work with him right after law school. I wasn't sure what I was going to do.

‍

(06:18):

Craig used to tease me and tell me that I was going to go work for the big defense firm. He'd say to go interview with Thompson Coburn and all these other things. And after a couple years, there was one client I fell in love with. It was a death case and it was a mother who had died in jail. It was a suicide case. And I just saw what happens and how they treat people and I just fell in love and I just could never get off this path, which is why I have now five kids and I'm still working because it's a calling. And so yes, still working with Craig and my dad trying to continue to build our team. And we try most of our cases in Missouri, but we're licensed in Illinois. And this case that we're here to talk about, of course, was an Illinois trial.

‍

(06:56):

And then we are blessed sometimes to go and pro hack and try cases in other places. And that's always been really, really neat. I know you do that, Alicia, because you're helping people all over the country. So it's really interesting to be in different jurisdictions and venues and courtrooms and local rules. You always need local counsel, at least we do. But people are so similar everywhere. You know the juries, people have the same hearts, I feel like. So anyway, I love the work. It's challenging. As you know, there's times I have doubts and concerns and uncertainties and all of that, but it's the most rewarding profession I think that we could ever fall upon. And so because of my dad, I get to stand on his shoulders and be a part of it. And it's very fulfilling. Yeah.

‍

Alicia Campbell (07:36):

Oh, that's very nice. Do you and Craig get along practicing together?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (07:41):

Yeah. I mean, he's a dear friend. He's my brother, but I trust him implicitly and we share the same values. We have the same virtue in mind when we are working for people and trying these cases and we understand the stakes, I guess, not just for the clients, but also for ourselves. We've been given a lot. We've been trained by our father. So how we step into a courtroom and how we represent ourselves and then our clients, there's a lot connected to it. So we're very united in that. He's just the best kind of friend. He always has my back and personally and professionally. So we really get along. Sometimes we fight. I mean, we get in arguments. I'm kind of mean. I have a bad temper and I get frustrated. So he deals with that, but I just can always depend on him. He's very steady.

‍

(08:26):

He's smart and he's just great trial lawyer. So there's a lot of confidence when I walk into a courtroom and Craig is next to me. It's totally different when I go on alone. So I don't do that anymore. I just go with him.

‍

Alicia Campbell (08:37):

Well, that's really nice to have such a close family connection and to feel that way. I think there'd be a lot of people. I don't think ... I can work with John, but I think after that, I don't know that I have a family member I could work with. Really, it's really lucky to be able to have them.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (08:51):

It's a relationship, right? I don't think I could work with my husband. You work with John. I think it just depends on your personalities. Craig and I, it just works. Your

‍

Alicia Campbell (09:00):

Dad must be so proud of you guys. I bet it makes him really happy.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (09:04):

I think so. We're really proud of him. Your

‍

Alicia Campbell (09:06):

Dad was a nice guy. I remember meeting him when I was in law school because he was right across from the Simon Law Firm. And so yeah, it's kind of crazy. We were all much younger then.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (09:16):

I know. I still feel young, but I'm like, oh my goodness. I guess I'm not. Oh,

‍

Alicia Campbell (09:21):

Girl. You are much younger than me. I don't always feel young. I feel very-

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (09:25):

Keep fighting, right?

‍

Alicia Campbell (09:27):

Right. Every day is a new day. I'm just grateful for it. It just means time keeps rolling and I keep getting older. I think everyone else gets younger. Wow. Nice ruminations about age. Okay. So wait a minute. Where did you go to school then? Where did you go to

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (09:41):

Undergrad? I went to Tulane in New Orleans.

‍

Alicia Campbell (09:42):

Did you play soccer?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (09:44):

I did. I

‍

Alicia Campbell (09:44):

Think that's amazing.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (09:45):

Were you an athlete?

‍

Alicia Campbell (09:46):

Yeah, I was. Oh. I mean, I grew up playing soccer, but I actually went to school on volleyball and softball.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (09:52):

Wow, you're a great athlete. Okay. I

‍

Alicia Campbell (09:55):

Mean, most soccer players are. They're girls. It's a thing. There's no way you're not a great athlete if you played soccer in college. There's no way.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (10:03):

And it transitions well into this work, right? I think.

‍

Alicia Campbell (10:06):

It does. Actually, it's a great point. No, you're exactly right about that. And then where did you go to law school?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (10:12):

Wash U. I went here in St. Louis.

‍

Alicia Campbell (10:14):

Wash U. Okay. I have my SLU shirt on. So sorry.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (10:18):

Yeah, I love it. Well, that's where we should have gone be a trial lawyer.

‍

Alicia Campbell (10:22):

Yeah, SLU is the practicing school, right? It's for the trial lawyers and wash us for the professors, really. It's the joke in St. Louis, Nick. You got to wash you if you want to be Ivory Tower Law and you go to SLU, if you want to be in the courtroom law.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (10:36):

I couldn't get into the ivory tower. So thank God, right? That was a blessing in disguise.

‍

Alicia Campbell (10:41):

Yeah. It's much better on the ground, I think.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (10:44):

Not my path. I'll just put it that way.

‍

Alicia Campbell (10:47):

But no, your path is to Illinois on this case that we're going to talk about because this case was a doozy. I love this case because it is a perfect case to talk about in terms of why your frame matters and that things that you're putting in your case that you think provide context or background or is important to the narrative, how some of that can really be your undoing in the case. And so it's one where ... And I'm going to let you go ahead and go through the facts of the case, Tony, and then we can kind of talk about it because we ran this one more than once and then we have even more interesting stories on the trial side that we need to talk about. It's kind of crazy. So yeah, let's dive in and tell us a little bit about this case.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (11:31):

Sure. So, and I have to thank you just at the beginning because you were such a friend throughout this case. This case was going to be lost and because of you all, it was one. That's the truth. So I am forever grateful. But this case, it actually was tried in Champaign County, the University of Illinois in Urbana. Our client, Andy Crum, was a truck driver and he had picked up a load of very heavy pipe in Louisiana and was bringing that up to north to the area of the University of Illinois to a job site on the campus actually. He's actually lives in Illinois, but was running this job. And when he got to the job site, there was the construction company that was receiving this pipe delivery and they had a telehandler to unload it. And I didn't know what a telehandler was before this case, but it's a big giant forklift that has an extendable boom.

‍

(12:22):

And it picks up really heavy stuff that people can't pick up with their hands. And basically what happened was before my client had completed unstrapping the load, the telehandler operator began the lift when my client was in the fall zone and he knocked pipe off onto our client who thankfully dove as he heard the noise under. I think if he hadn't dove under, he would've died, but he still broke his neck, his back in multiple places and had a head injury. And we had very little information. There were no witnesses well until we were in the case. And miraculously, at some point, years into the case, a photograph came to the surface from an unrelated third party. It was a truck driver that was waiting to unload, waiting for them to unload it so they were out on the drive. And that person just happened to take a picture of the back of the trailer and the position of the telehandler.

‍

(13:16):

And it showed to everyone in our focus group and anyone that just looking that obviously the forks had been lifted. And of course the defense in this case was that they hadn't touched the telehandler, that this just fell off and that gets into more detail. This load had shifted from Louisiana to Illinois. And so there were a lot of factors involved, but ultimately it was the operator of a big heavy machine that wasn't paying attention, didn't make sure the most important person was out of the way and then someone got seriously hurt.

‍

Alicia Campbell (13:44):

Yeah. And so this case, when did it get tried?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (13:47):

So I was looking at that. It was November 17th it started and then it went into the next week. It actually, they deliberated the day before Thanksgiving. So whatever that would've been, it was the Wednesday before that we got the verdict.

‍

Alicia Campbell (13:58):

That's right. I remember. Yeah. And so it was a tough case for a lot of reasons, because the way that the pipe was loaded on the truck wasn't done by the client. The client was like ... In fact, in the studies too, a lot of jurors were side-eying the plaintiff a little bit about his contribution potentially in this one. But it was interesting because when we first ran it, the first time we ran it, Tony had written in quite a bit of information about the actual trip from Louisiana up into Illinois. And so it was to try to provide kind of context. "This is how the pipe was stacked. My guy doesn't do it. He shows up in the truck and then he drives the load. "What is interesting is in driving the load, the load kind of shifted. Am I remembering this right? It did shift.

‍

(14:44):

And we had that included and kind of was the starting point of the story that he's driving, he's a responsible driver, gets that the load's not right. He pulls over, tries to see, he puts more straps on the load and then continues to drive to Illinois. And with the data that came back, what we learned was even with all the rest of the facts of the telehandler, the photo of the telehandler, the way the pipes fell, the case was not awesome.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (15:13):

No, I mean, it literally was ... No, it was terrible. And you learn, we know this at this point in practicing, we know you try your case. You don't try the defense case. And I wrote this case, the first 50% of the case had nothing to do with the defendant, the defendant's conduct. It had everything to do with context. Our client was crushed and an Illinois contrib is if they're more than 50% at fault, you lose. So it was a major issue. And you were the one that was like, " Hey, Tony, don't talk about anything else except the job site. You tiptoe off the job site for a moment, you lose this case. Do not get off the job site. You're on the job site. The whole case is on the job site. The whole case is that photograph. Job site, photograph, job site, photograph.

‍

(16:00):

"I'm like, " Well, I need to talk about ... "You're like, " No, you don't. Don't talk about it. "Because they had a trucking expert because our client had not, there's no evidence he had stopped within the first 25 miles or the first 150 miles to inspect. They're throwing that dirt on him. They were blaming him for how he strapped it and belly strapped this because this was a tiered load. So it was five tiers high. They wanted him to belly strap it at the second tier versus the third tier. I mean, one thing- In the 60s, I think. One day or another, and then that it shifted and he should have gotten off the road and he should have had someone come and fix it. It was one thing after another. And by the time they got to the job site, we had already lost the case.

‍

(16:36):

So it's amazing what happened on that second when he ran it the second time though.

‍

Alicia Campbell (16:40):

Yeah. So tell everyone a little bit about how we ran it the second time.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (16:43):

Well, the first time, I mean, we were ... I can't remember what the win rate was, but it was not winnable in my opinion, especially in the 60s on the best day, I think. Yeah, that was with the five million ask. 63% and that didn't even ... Yeah. So when we ran it again and we just talked about the job site, we had an 89% win rate. I mean, I cried. I literally cried when you sent me that because I was so defeated by this case. It was such a tough case, really. Sometimes you just have tough ... And I couldn't believe it. I cried. Thank you, Alicia.

‍

Alicia Campbell (17:16):

Yeah, because for me it was crazy because I remember reading, it was a complicated case in terms of how the pipe ... Because each sets of pipe was like, I think, a different diameter or it was stacked differently or something. And I remember having to get through all of what it took to get this amount of pipe on the truck and for the truck to be stable so that it could be moved and that there was a certain way that they had to be done. But what I remember doing is for me, I thought, oh, this is all very informative when we were running the first one. I'm like, okay, so this is how pipe gets on here. This is how it needs to be stacked to be stable. It might not be a little bit stable. And what I thought when we were running it was like, well, what does that have to do with the driver?

‍

(17:56):

In my estimation when we ran it the first time, I was like, "Well, that doesn't have anything to do with the driver. It can't be a very big deal." I just remember getting the results back and being like, "Oh, holy shit. What's happening here is that going through the way that the pipe was stacked, regardless of who stacked it, the moment he leaves on that truck, once it shifts, all the jurors are like, Hey dude, you're driving down the highway in a truck with shifted pipe. Everything you say after that, yep, everything you say after that, I'm side-eying you. So now when you say that you were out of the way when you were, you should have been out of the way that you were actually trying to help with the pipe, that you had made sure that the guy and the telehandler knew not to do anything.

‍

(18:37):

What ended up happening is because he didn't pull over in the first instance when the pipe shifted and take any ... I mean, because he re-strapped. It's kind of crazy because I think he added straps at that point, didn't he, when he pulled up?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (18:49):

Oh, he had double the amount of regulated straps on the load, but it just, I mean, double what the regs required and then added more. What's crazy about this was actually, this is one of the safest guys you'd ever run into. And the way the case came in, he was being perceived as someone that was reckless and not careful. And it was, I mean, we were feeding ... The defense was, this is a shifted unstable load. So I mean, we were feeding right into it with the way I wrote it the first time. And it made us try the case completely differently too. I mean, because you still had to tell the story. We had to just, like you said, frame it and structure it differently because we had to start on the job site and you can still explain the context of how it's loaded at the job site.

‍

(19:32):

You don't have to do that first. It's not important, but they did not like him in that first. And he's such a likable guy. It's so frustrating when you know the client, you know the people involved, you know the other side and it's like not coming through. But thank goodness we did that in a focus group and we didn't have to learn that lesson at trial.

‍

Alicia Campbell (19:50):

Yeah, because I don't think it would've been a very intuitive lesson really because I remember getting the report back and thinking to myself like, "Holy shit, I need to call Tony and we need to run this again." Because I mean, we've done over 1400 of these, right? So I mean, I've had pipe cases, I've had trucking cases, but this one really stunned me. I don't know if I told you that. This one really, when I went through the report and the results, I chewed on this one for a little while because I was like, I cannot believe and I have to think because I did not expect the win rate to be at 63%. I thought it was going to be a much ... Because for me, in my mind, it was what happened at the job site. And to me, the picture, once I saw the picture of the telehandler where he's touching the pipe after he claimed that he didn't touch the pipe, and it was only because we have this other truck driver who comes forward with his photo.

‍

(20:40):

But once I saw that photo, for me, the case was over. And so I assumed that that's how the jurors would see it. So this case was very interesting because it really was a lesson in like, you better be careful on how you're framing your case and where you start to frame your case because once they got this, "Well, why didn't he pull over? Why didn't he stop? Why didn't he turn around and take the pipe back and insist it was reloaded?" The moment that that happened, everything after about him, including his injuries, everything after that was tainted is the only way I can say it. And it wasn't intuitive to me that just by providing, "Hey, there's this loaded pipe, our guy's driving, he starts here, he's getting here, and when he gets here, he's injured in Illinois." It never occurred to me in any real way when we were running it, Nick, we should be very concerned about this pipe shifting because then we even had in there that he hopped out, he was responsible, he added straps, but it was that moment that the jurors were like, "I don't know about this guy." And so the rest of the story was completely affected and the photo then went down in terms of significance.

‍

(21:49):

When to me, running it, I thought, "This is the piece of evidence that Tony needs. I'm so glad she has it. "

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (21:54):

Well, and I remember you watched the video of the target defendant and you didn't like him either. And you're like, "But it wasn't coming across." And I realized it was only after this focus group that every single thing that we did to try to explain, none of it had to do with our case. I mean, literally, it didn't even matter that he doubled the straps. That wasn't our case. That was a defense to their case. And I don't even know why it didn't click because ... And that wasn't just 1% or 2% or 3% of it. I mean, that was a lot of context that was poured into that. It was hard for me because I'm like, "Well, how do I not talk about it? It seems important and just jump to the job site." But we did it and it worked. But it literally was like, we almost have to ask her, is what you're talking about right now your case?

‍

(22:38):

And if it's not, you better have a damn good reason why you're talking about it because you shouldn't be ... 99% of the time, you shouldn't be talking about it.

‍

Alicia Campbell (22:44):

No, it's really interesting because your instinct to provide context was equal to mine. It's a fascinating thing that I was like, oh my God, I hope she'll do this because I felt like, holy crap, if we take all of this out, where we stand at the end and yeah, it was like a 26% increase in the wind rate.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (23:02):

Well, I need for context for the original, because we did a $5 million request, that was the 63%, that was the best win rate. So that's because we were in such dire straits at that point. You just ran five million in the second focus group, but the $10 million request was 57% and the 20 million was 53. I mean, we were losing this case. And in Illinois, I think he submitted seven or eight, again, disjunctive submissions against the plaintiff. So they're allowed to do a lot more in Illinois. And we were in trouble with this trial, because you helped us with the trial, we didn't get to conduct any attorney voir dire, which is a huge ... I mean, it was like they amputated. That's at least how I felt. Craig handles our voir dire. And so Craig and I tried this with Greg Shevlin, who was our local counsel, and then our paralegal, Sarah Balsudos, was there too.

‍

(23:51):

Craig couldn't even say hello. I mean, we could do no attorney follow up. We would go outside to a different courtroom in between, talk to the judge, ask him to ask him for specific followup, but we had no questions on contributory fault. We could ask no questions on millions of dollars for non-economics. So I was really concerned. I mean, you guys, you were there with us virtually throughout jury selection and that was really interesting.That was the first time that we did that with you. I mean, it was like having a team in the room. You must do that often. You sometimes are probably actually in the courtroom doing that, Alicia, but that's incredible. Really? You guys were so fast.

‍

Alicia Campbell (24:32):

That was only the second time I had done it. Yeah. I had done it once with Omar, who was a jury ball Madrid, and so he had no attorney-led questions. And then when you mentioned like, "Hey," because I was very excited about this case once it came back. I mean, it's always fun to work with you, but when the results came back more in line like, "Oh my God, we're living too much in the defense case. We think we're providing context. Actually, we're living in the defense case." And so when the win rate changed and you mentioned, "Oh, but we're not going to get any voir dire." I was like, "Oh, no." Oh no, please let me help you because I want to be able to at least do what we can and if I don't have to come out, that's okay too, but we can do it together on a Google doc is basically where we lived.

‍

(25:17):

We spent-

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (25:18):

Right, which I was a little afraid to do because so much is happening in trial and I'm like, "How am I going to logistically be the person? It worked out.

‍

Nick Schweitzer (25:26):

" Oh, that was this.

‍

Alicia Campbell (25:31):

Yes. I mean, Nick, this is the person who wrote, "We have a person who refuses to say no to questions. He's just saying negative." They're like, "Dude, not that guy. We cannot seat that guy. That guy's got to go. " No, no, no, no, no. No is an easy word to repeat once asked. If you're still saying negative, no, thank you. No, thank you. You're going to be a leader.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (25:53):

We really needed because they do a different Missouri. They do the box situation. So you have to use your ... If you don't get them for cause, you have to use your strike then. So it's a little scary because you don't know who you're ending up with and you have to do it like now. And I'm not used to that either. You usually see the whole pool and then you know-

‍

Alicia Campbell (26:09):

Yeah. So talk a little bit about how the voir dire went. People are fascinated by the different ways voir dire goes. How did it go in this case?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (26:16):

I mean, I prayed. I just prayed the whole time. The judge was a wonderful guy. I mean, he's really a hardworking judge. It's just you practice in different areas and it was just culturally so different. The defense lawyer in this case, maybe one of the best defense trial lawyers we've ever worked against, but we didn't get along, unfortunately. And a lot of that bled out for the court to see. And that's something we'll learn from in the future if you can try to handle that. So the judge was a no-nonsense guy, is a no-nonsense guy. And I think he wasn't going to put up with any attorney participation in jury selection. Now the judges always conduct jury selection there, but they do allow some limited follow-up from attorneys who wouldn't allow any of it for us. And I think because of some of that history.

‍

(27:02):

So we submitted, and we actually asked because the Simon Law Firm, they're just wonderful, excellent trial lawyers. So Tim Cronin had tried a case. They had been incredibly successful a couple, two, three years ago in a sexual assault case in front of this judge. So being able to talk to other lawyers that have been there, that was very helpful. We spoke to him because they had submitted questions. So we were able to use some of what they had used and then crafted our own for this case to submit to the judge. We took a lot of time because you're usually getting ready for jury selection. Here we were trying to submit questions. It's just such a strange shift, but he didn't use the language. We're so precise with our language and jury selection and you're so close with Keith Mitt, language is so powerful and how you say something or don't say something in silence, it's so important.

‍

(27:46):

And so we took a lot of time and that'll settle service in the future. But he did it his way, which is which judges should they have the power and to do that. And he did that, but it's hard to sit and watch someone else do your jury selection. And so there was a lot of questions because they had the defense questions as well as our questions that seemed irrelevant. It didn't matter. It was like, "This isn't what we care about, but it's what a lot of people do. " And so we kind of felt like it was almost an exercise of futility from our perspective because the big issues, which is, like I said, big money, damages for pain and suffering, much less millions of dollars for pain and suffering. And then can you be a part of a case where the plaintiff has some fault and still has a recovery?

‍

(28:28):

Those were not topics that were undertaken. Now they did get into where's anyone truck drivers and that sort of thing. So we got some of that. And then of course any kind of relationships, because this was a local company. So some of that came in, but we had to really trust and use our sempery strikes. We got a few strikes for cause. And the judge really tried to be judicious with that. But of course we're going to have disagreements with who should be stricken and who shouldn't. And so we had those and it was just tough. All I remember is that you found a lady who was Mrs. Claus. She was a sweetheart. And thank God she got herself stricken for cause, but we didn't want Mrs. Claws on our panel. I don't know. It was an experience. I didn't like it. It was really uncomfortable.

‍

(29:07):

It did help having you all in the room. You weren't in the room, but they're with us. And really it was maybe a miracle that we had a group that was willing and open to hear our case because we could have been in a lot of trouble.

‍

Alicia Campbell (29:17):

How did the judge handle cause in that scenario?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (29:21):

He didn't seem to ... It's a little different in Illinois. There's more discretion. Like here in Missouri, they're required there's any equivocation and that the juror's not the judge of their ability to be fair and impartial of their own credibility and that sort of thing. It's not as clear cut in Illinois. So I mean, he had discretion. I feel like he just went with his gut on it. He either thought something really mattered or it didn't. And I can't really remember exactly. We were close. We're on the fence. There was someone who knew the target defendant from high school and said that it wasn't an issue, but we were really concerned. And the judge was on the fence about But ultimately he did strike him for cause. So it was really more like gut checks. That's how it felt. And then just hoping the right people would just fall into place because we didn't have a lot of control over it.

‍

Alicia Campbell (30:13):

When he asked a question and it brought out some kind of strike for cause in your mind, what did the judge have you do?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (30:20):

So he finished questions with that group. Because there was no court reporter, that's becoming a problem. As you know, we had to step out, go into a different courtroom with a separate recording system and then make our arguments for cause there. Craig handled it. Craig was very precise. He has the law and then he makes the precise argument for the record purposes. We did have to make our record multiple times on the contribut issue and on the money for pain and sufferings issue because we couldn't ask any questions. So he did that as respectfully as he could. And then the judge made his rulings and it was right back out into the courtroom for the next group. Whoever's left is not seated yet because some were already taking the seats. Four more would come forward. We'd start over with them or he'd start over with them, if that makes sense.

‍

Alicia Campbell (31:02):

Did he grant any hardships? How did hardships happen?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (31:05):

It's amazing. This group didn't have hardships.

‍

Alicia Campbell (31:08):

Shut up. Really?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (31:10):

I swear. And it was right before Thanksgiving. And I don't think there was ... If there was, it was like one or two. And I can't remember how many we had. We had a decent number of jurors come, maybe 60, but I don't think you would think with a two week trial, it wasn't two weeks, but it was bleeding into the second week and it was Thanksgiving. I don't believe there were any. They're really willing, hardworking people, like invested people.

‍

Alicia Campbell (31:35):

Do you know how many cause challenges were granted ultimately? Do you remember?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (31:39):

I can't. Craig would remember that and of course didn't bring them on. It was somewhere between five and 10, so it wasn't terrible. So he did grant some.

‍

Alicia Campbell (31:46):

And how many pemptatories did you have?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (31:49):

We had more than we would usually have. We had more than three, but I don't remember how many. I want to say it could have been five.

‍

Alicia Campbell (31:55):

Yeah, I was thinking it was five or six.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (31:57):

Yeah. It might have been six, Alicia. I couldn't believe it. So it doesn't make sense that we've had that many strikes for cause because we used all of our peremptories, but it was just an unusual ... I was glad we had the six. I think it was six because we needed that. And you all would help, you would tell us you need to get rid of this person so we'd do it. And then we had a jury and I was like, who are they? Who was in the box?

‍

Alicia Campbell (32:19):

I don't even know. Well, yeah, it's got to be a little weird because you've never talked to them. It's like so often in voir dire, it's like, "Hey, this is my one time to talk to you. And then the rest of the trial, I kind of have to ignore you or run from you, especially if I see you in the bathroom." So it's got to be a little weird to start and not have really talked to the people who are sitting there and now you're captured audience.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (32:39):

Opening was ... Yeah, that was the first time and I did the opening and yeah, it was the very first time I was connecting with them. It was really special though. I really felt connected to them. So came together. Yeah. Well,

‍

Alicia Campbell (32:50):

That's nice. That doesn't always happen, so I'm glad.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (32:53):

Right. It doesn't in opening especially. So I don't ... Maybe because we had been in the room.

‍

Alicia Campbell (32:58):

Yeah, because I'm trying to remember how long it took. How long did it take? Did we just spend a day maybe picking a jury?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (33:05):

It was a day. And I mean, I think when you're put in that position, I guess all you can do is really hold space with people and be present to them, even though you're not speaking to them. And that's something too. And as the plaintiff lawyers, we get to be closest to them physically. I mean, there's power just in that, but obviously there's more in actually speaking to people.

‍

Alicia Campbell (33:23):

How many did we see? I don't remember that.

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (33:26):

I think there were 12. You need a unanimous verdict in Illinois. Obviously in Missouri, it's nine of the 12. So yeah, they ultimately decided the verdict was like 2.125 million. So it wasn't anything we were running and excited about, but from where we started to where we were, it was a big success. I mean, there were a lot of things against us. We were at risk for losing the case, for sure. And they hit him with 35% fault, which kind of hurt. That stung a little bit. So I think it was like 1.4 in the end, 1.4. And I was pushing you because I wanted to suggest more than five million, but remember the numbers were really ... And it was just such a risk that we just ... Because I felt strange. It was the first time I was asking for ... I was suggesting a number that was lower than I thought the case was worth.

‍

(34:17):

And who knows, we would've been worse off. It was just we had to go with the information we had because we were going in with appeared to be a losing case and had a great client. And so Craig was like, " Tony, we need to be grateful for this. "Given everything involved that this jury did what they did.

‍

Alicia Campbell (34:32):

Yeah. I mean, because it's a tough case really. It ended up having a much better win rate, but the damages were always an issue because I think your guy, because really that part of the case didn't change as much as the win rate changed when we ran it between the two, if I remember right.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (34:46):

They attacked him terribly because his alcohol use was, we had a treating doctor saying he had an alcohol problem. His temper was a part of his brain injury, but they're like, " Well, he's just a drunk. "They were saying horrible things. I mean, he was thankfully never physical with anyone he loved, but he'd throw things and break things. He's like this gentle man, and then there was this just side of him. He became a toddler, but that's not sympathetic. And that was something else that came through the focus group was that, because I was like, " It's not sympathetic to be an angry guy, to be a scary guy. He's a big guy. "And so then it became the damages side of that kind of ugly side of him that was a part of his head injury, which of course they disputed ad nauseam, but was the shame that he had because everybody can relate to shame.

‍

(35:33):

So no one was going to sympathize with this, but they could understand that you have shame. So shame was that part of the head injury. And then of course pain because ... But we had a guy who was working full time. He hadn't had surgery for four years. They say that all this stuff is wrong with his spine. Well, he works at Cattle Ranch at his house and he works full-time in maintenance as a CDL driver. So you've got a guy who's not lost any wages. He's young, he's strong, he's doing things that do not appear to be things that someone that who's seriously injured can do. And he's hurting his family with his personality that has changed. And they're like, " Well, is it really a personality change? This guy's just like a mean drunk. "And they were allowed to really go after the alcohol.

‍

(36:17):

So thankfully, he's a really wonderful person and he was incredible during his testimony. Our local counsel, Greg Shevlin said after he goes," That was really healing. "It felt so healing to just listen to him testify. He didn't fight back. He didn't feel like he had to fight. He accepted things that he needed to accept. He would laugh a little when they said certain things. The defense lawyer got nowhere with him. And he's a very talented guy. He's a very talented lawyer. And so Andy Crum really showed up as Andy in front of the jury, and I think that helped us. But we had a tough damages model and we had a tough liability model. So we learned a lot. And you were just the most incredible friend and colleague to partner with us because we would just never be here. I think we would've been walking away with such a disappointment out of Champaign.

‍

Alicia Campbell (37:11):

No, it was a great thing to learn. It was something else to ... Because I don't know if we've seen this much, Nick, I don't know, where your context like this can be so ... It was startling just to see the change and to be able to link it between the two reports. This is just about the trip up to Illinois.

‍

Nick Schweitzer (37:30):

You don't see this big of a change without, oh, there's some huge piece of evidence that is now in or out or something like that that totally pivots the case. But just to see that big of a difference, I just have both reports that I'm looking at over here. And I mean, it's surprising, especially when the first numbers you see as you see are not the 63 or whatever. It's in the 50s or whatever, jumping up to almost 90%. I mean, that's ...

‍

Alicia Campbell (37:53):

It's crazy. It's like that confluence, that just confluence of you think you're just explaining and being credible. And that's the thing that stuck out to me is like, Tony's not writing about this because she thinks she's in the weeds with the defense. She thinks she's just responsibly describing how her client is trying to be a good guy moving this pipe, which would make you think he's a good guy at the site. And instead, it was a really important reminder, like some of the framing, some of the context we provide, we have to be very careful about because if it lives at all in the defense world, it may not be construed the way we mean it to be. It's just crazy because you're very thorough, Tony. You're a very thorough presenter. You present your cases, both sides very thoroughly. And so that's how I read it.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (38:40):

It got me in trouble in this one. It's like that's a losing strategy here. And so then it really helped you during the trial just to stay on the job site.

‍

Alicia Campbell (38:49):

What did you guys do to make sure you stayed on this job site? Is that where you started at opening too?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (38:54):

Well, I started with the telling operator, waiting with the machine. So I started with the machine so that there was a picture of it and then just it's big and how far ... Just to give context of size and weight and what it's there for and then the hazards. So then I got the rules in kind of first. And then I sort of did it from his perspective waiting for the load to get there. And the load gets there. And yeah, it was all completely changed because of what we learned, but that's how we started. And very soon after that, we put the picture up of the telehandler forks in the air because the sequencing mattered. They needed like what comes first, it clearly matters. So they had the context of this big machine and why there's rules because if you do something that you shouldn't do, someone can die, like the boots on the ground, those folks will die.

‍

(39:41):

And then you show the forks in the air and pipe that's on the ground. And it's like, you don't have to say it. It's, "Oh no, what happened?" That's how we started, eventually had to get to Andy because Andy, the client, I mean, he's a strong guy and he's walking in and out like nothing's wrong. So we had to talk about him with them and somehow connect that. But the liability started with the operator and the machine and then here comes the pipe and then this is what we do to unload it. That's how we started. So I forgot too in this case that there was another intervening injury before he was diagnosed with head injury. So there was just like a lot of things. I mean, he had hit a branch fell on his head in between the event and then the first time he was comprehensively evaluated for a head injury.

‍

(40:23):

So they're saying that the branch. But there's just a lot of little things along the way that are distracting. So we had to touch on it because you have to put context, you don't want to lose credibility, but it couldn't have the focus. The focus had to be this operator. And he did his favors. He wasn't the most likable guy. He's a very cocky guy. And I don't know if that was the pressure of the lawsuit or he'd been with the company for like 25 years. So that's got to be somebody that's loyal and that you want to keep around. But when they're put in the setting of a courtroom, he did not have a good appearance. So that helped.

‍

Alicia Campbell (40:56):

When you closed, how did you handle closing?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (40:58):

Craig did the second half. So we'd split it up. I went through some of the instructions and then how did we ... I don't think I broke up the five million. We'd said five million from the beginning and I just framed it as the last four years and then the next for the rest of his life. And it wasn't like hard because five million seemed really low. And so we talked about what he was going to deal with. I mean, it's a very isolating injury. And I remember what came through because there was so much noise in this case. I remember lifting up my hands high because I was thinking about light, like a light, one light and the darkness. You have all this dark noise and everything and you can't find the truth. Where is it? And if you just put a light up, you see it, you could see truth.

‍

(41:39):

So I put my hands up and I was like, "You can see light." And that was the photograph, that's truth. So we used the photograph as the light and the truth. And then I used his family and friends as the light and truth of his injury because there were these ... His father, he's a psychologist, but he's not a warm and fuzzy guy, but he cried on the stand. I was shocked. I thought the mother was going to get emotional on the stand. I thought the dad was going to do terrible. That's where you just have to look. He was incredible. Mother was fine. His girlfriend, his two buddies from, since he was young, they all got up and spoke. They were these likable people that weren't trying to pull anything or they were just real salt of the earth. And so we used that.

‍

(42:20):

They're the light because you can listen. There were a lot of doctors and we had attorney referred care involved. They had doctors. So it was like, "Yeah, you've heard all the medicine, but what's the truth here?" So we focused on, because there was so much noise, and I call that darkness, what's the light? And so the light for the liability was the photograph, the light for the damages was family and friends because that really, you don't have to explain it. It's true, just his truth. And we know truth when we see it. And then after the defense came in and went through his spiel, which is always hard to listen to. Even now, six months later, I'm like, "Oh gosh, I remember that I was like, they accuse you of everything. You're just like a slimy, terrible person and all that. " And you're like, "Did you have to?

‍

(43:00):

Come on now." But then Craig got up and did his honorable, beautiful thing because he's Craig and he believes in it. And then that great jury went and they did what they could for us in a tough case.

‍

Alicia Campbell (43:10):

How long were they out? Do you remember?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (43:12):

It was a while, long. I didn't get much sleep. I remember I was falling asleep in the courtroom five or six hours.

‍

Alicia Campbell (43:19):

That's enough to be wondering what's happening. Did you talk to any of them afterwards?

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (43:22):

No, unfortunately he let them out the back. I would've loved to. We just got the eyes and you get the eyes and they're walking out and they nod because they're so good, but we couldn't talk. And it was late at that point and the next day was Thanksgiving. So I remember I was driving back at night. So it was kind of like you took so much of their time. And I don't know where he released them because they went back and then there was no public area. So unfortunately we'll never know what they thought of us and how they reached their number, but it could have been a lot worse.

‍

Alicia Campbell (43:49):

Yeah. And a W is a W.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (43:51):

Yeah. And they put a lot more weight on his future. I can't remember the breakdown, but his ... Oh yeah, a million for future disability. They put 1.675 million on the future pain and suffering and only 450,000 from the past. So they were worried about him.

‍

Alicia Campbell (44:06):

They were. They were worried about him. They thought he had real damage that would affect him in the future. That's really great.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (44:11):

Yeah. So would've loved more, but it is what it is. Plus in Illinois, you get prejudgment interest on everything, so that helps. So the recovery was nicer than ... I think we got like one and a half in the end or something like that.

‍

Alicia Campbell (44:23):

I think that's really great on a case that started with like a win rate in the 50s and the 60s.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (44:28):

Or we're going to just go work our rear ends off and lose and be like, "What is this my intended purpose?"

‍

Alicia Campbell (44:33):

And I wanted to do this podcast with you because I also don't think that if you had tried it the way you ran the first iteration, if you'd just gone and tried it like that and you had started where you started and you didn't live at the work site, I think if you had lost, which would have been a coin toss whether you won or lost, I don't know that people would have been able to identify the actual reason why you lost. That is what's so fascinating about this to me is like, I think you probably would have, if you had lost, you would have come back and if you hadn't talked to any jurors, you would have been like, "They didn't like our guy." I just think that it would have been hidden. I don't know that anybody would have been like, "You know what it was because you talked about the travel from Louisiana to Illinois." It wouldn't have stood out in that way.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (45:19):

Well, you were the one that was like, "You said this picture is you win this case with this picture. You don't just stay there." And I was like, "All right." So I agree. I think we would have just been discouraged and not known.

‍

Alicia Campbell (45:31):

Yeah, I think so. And you would have tried to assign meeting to something that we only know because we got the data done. It's one of my favorite stories, because I love the stories where people take their bad case and we run it more than once and it's actually not getting better because it's not every call where I'm like, "Tony, it's gone up. Yes." A lot of time I'm like, "Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm really sorry. We ran it again and it still sucks." And so I love the lawyers who take it and they're like, "All right, well, I need to flip this on its head then. And I need to be looking at all the things that I thought were good because now I have to do something to change it. There's a way to win the case. I got to figure it out from the data that I'm getting." And we have those.

‍

(46:11):

I love those success stories. They're probably my favorite data stories. But this one was also like, I got to get Tony on the podcast because this would have been a loss that people would have explained for the wrong reasons because it's not intuitive that what you think you're explaining is dude's really responsible. Actually to jurors meant dude was irresponsible. That whole trip, he's irresponsible so that now I don't care by the time you get me to the work site. And so like, yeah, I'm so glad you were willing to come on and talk about it because it's a really great lesson. For me, it was a great second report where I actually get to call and be like, "Yeah." And then it turned out at trial in line with the data and everything else. It's like a credit to you guys that you pivoted, went with it, trusted the data, implemented it, started at the work site, and then you got the results.

‍

(47:01):

It's really great that way. It's a really great story. It's a credit to you and Craig, for sure.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (47:06):

Well, and you all, it is. And it's so much easier to try a case like that, but disciplined. It's so easy to feel pulled into these other areas. I obviously felt it. I thought I was giving context and being credible and that's always good. I needed to maintain those things, but not in that way. I mean, it was framed for a loss. So it really helped us stay rooted in this is our case. It made us clear on what is our case too. Because you go into trial like this is our case. Don't get pulled into that. Don't go fight that battle. You don't need to fight that battle. Sometimes you don't have to talk about what they bring up. Just ignore it. And I remember Eric Penn said that once to me before that trucking case, he's just like one of the many lawyers who's just willing to talk to anybody.

‍

(47:47):

We're not friends or anything. He was willing to talk to me before the case. And he said, when I walk out of a trial after the verdict and the jurors come up to me and say it was like you were trying two totally different cases, he's like, "Thank you. Thank goodness I've done my job." Because it's so easy to get angry. For me especially, I'm very emotional, angry. I like justice is so important. And when people try to hold things, I want to fight them, the defense. And it's like, that is not your job. Let them play over there on their playground. Whoever's the most credible, just do your case. And so this was such a gift, even though it was such a challenge because I learned so much again about how important it is to try your case and to find your case. And that's what you all helped us do, is to find our case and then to stand with it and try it from that vantage point.

‍

(48:37):

It's credible. I don't know how you guys do this. I don't understand any of it. I'm just like, wait, so tell me exactly ... Okay, so this is what ... How are you trialer and all this data? I am just like, wow, you must be brilliant.

‍

Alicia Campbell (48:51):

No, no. We just ask cruel people. And the thing is, the beautiful thing is they're great and they'll tell you. And sometimes it's this one stood out because I was like, this is not at all what I would expect. Does this surprise you, Nick, that it's this, that it's context that killed this

‍

Nick Schweitzer (49:05):

Case? I mean, it's surprising. Everything here is surprising to me because I'm not a lawyer, so I don't try these cases. I don't know what matters and doesn't. This is kind of like my law school in these podcasts where I kind of just sit here and take it all in and hear that. But yeah, I mean, it's surprising.

‍

Alicia Campbell (49:21):

Yeah. It's so crazy because I'm with Tony. I probably would be more prone to overexplain and provide context that I felt like I was giving people the whole story than to leave it out. It was super counterintuitive to me.

‍

Nick Schweitzer (49:34):

Because you know all of it. You know the whole story. And if you feel like I feel this is a winning case and I know everything about it, I just need to communicate that everything to others and feel the same way I do, I imagine, but not always.

‍

Alicia Campbell (49:46):

Not always. No, not always. Well, thank you, Tony, for joining us today. This was really great. And we're onto the next one with you because we've got it. We're working through it right now. And yeah, we're going to have another one with Tony. And yeah, I'm always thrilled when I get the scripts from you because I'm like, all right, girls either going to another trial pregnant or not. I don't know which one it's going to be.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (50:11):

Not pregnant this time. It is

‍

Alicia Campbell (50:13):

Amazing. Because I think you tried the trucking case pregnant and then you tried one in the city of St. Louis with the chick who put her and you were pregnant then too. And I just remember like this-

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (50:24):

Oh, that was actually in Kate Gerardo, but yeah.

‍

Alicia Campbell (50:26):

I was like, "This is the second time I've talked to her." This is going out and kicking ass.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (50:31):

I think it's good luck. I think we do pretty well. No, maybe one more and then-

‍

Alicia Campbell (50:36):

No.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (50:38):

No. Thank you so much. I'm really grateful for the invitation to be with you guys.

‍

Nick Schweitzer (50:43):

Yeah. Thank you so much.

‍

Alicia Campbell (50:45):

Oh no, thank you for coming on and talking about it because this is a great, not intuitive thing, but it's a good reminder because we always think of like context is good, credibility is linked with context and what the data tells you here is maybe not so, maybe it depends and that maybe you're doing more harm than good that would be hard to know if you don't run the data because it was certainly not an intuitive answer to me.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (51:10):

There was a way to put it in context because you have to in a small way. And I think I put all that in one sentence at the end of opening. It was like something like, they'll do everything they can to ignore this photograph, why they may even do this, they may even do this, they may even do this, they may even do this and none of it has any. Then that's kind of how we ended up doing it. And then they just kind of move on instead of spending 20 minutes.

‍

Alicia Campbell (51:31):

No, that's really great because you kept your credibility that way. You acknowledge it. You just weren't the one explaining. You weren't the one on defense is really how everybody read it. Oh, you're telling me about his travel up here because you're worried about what the defense is going to say about it, even though that's not what you were doing. That's how they read it. It's really crazy. Jurors are good. They're always good. No, thank you for coming.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (51:54):

Thank you, Alicia. Thanks, Nick.

‍

Alicia Campbell (51:56):

We're on to the next one. Yeah. And we'll have a new Fred podcast out soon. Nick and I will. And until then, all you guys have is a wonderful day today, and thanks for joining us.

‍

Nick Schweitzer (52:06):

Yeah, thank you.

‍

Antoinette (Toni) Schlapprizzi (52:07):

Thank you.

‍

Voice Over (52:11):

Thank you for listening to The Fred Files. If you found value in today's discussion, please subscribe and share this episode with your colleagues. To explore how Fred can transform your case preparation, visit us at focuswithfred.com. Produced and powered by LawPods.