The Cop That Saw Nothing

(: 00:00

you had an arrest warrant for Gunnar Roberts, correct?

I had a arrest warrant for Gunnar Roberts and for Jeremy Miller.

All right. You did not have an arrest warrant with the address of Kit Frost's home on it, is that correct? Okay. And you did not have a search warrant for the residence in question either, did you? When you got to the door, however, you were let into the residence. Okay. So there was a consent to allow you into the house where Kit Frost lived, correct?

It did not.

(: 00:38

Yes, and I mean, we had probable cause to search the residence because we had identified both Gunner Roberts and Jeremy Miller and saw them enter the residence.

And whether you have probable cause or not, they let you in the door, correct?

Correct. We're not just trial consultants.

We're not just actors. We've been cross-examined over 1,500 times in cross simulations to help train and coach some of the world's top trial attorneys.

Through live witness sparring, we'll test constructive cross techniques, share fresh insights, and explore new strategies.

(: 01:11

And even though the testimony may be fake, the trial skills? Totally real.

So let's experiment, discover what works, and have some fun in CrossLab. The show is brought to you by Trial House Consulting and powered by Lopods. Welcome to CrossLab. I'm Steve Holman.

And I'm Olivia Espinosa.

We need to be honest. We are not lawyers and we're not going to talk a whole lot about the law today

Nope, specifically we are going to be focused on storytelling and how you make your witness injury feel through what has been famously called constructive cross.

(: 01:43

We call it the yes and cross, but basically it's a strategy of making your opposing witness a tool to tell your narrative.

We have designed a test c trial attorneys to spar w for this

Also, these two guests have kind of a unique connection. One followed his father's footsteps into the law and our other guest runs his practice with his son. Actually, they both run their practices with their family members.

Let's introduce them and get started. First, have Bruce Ringstrom. He is the founding partner of Ringstrom Decray, a criminal defense and civil rights firm based in Moorhead, Minnesota. Bruce is certified as a criminal law specialist by the Minnesota State Bar Association, and he can also be heard on Law Talk with Ringstrom Decray. So check that out. Welcome, Bruce.

Thank you

(: 02:45

happy to have you back. A Brian. Fred Bryant has ded legal career to represent plaintiffs and injured wor Kansas City where he practi of his son. Fred has ser board of governors for th of trial attorneys, been bar pro bono award winner

of Workers Compensation L an active participant in t Association's Volunteer A all that being said, he accomplishment are his ma

(: 03:31

Thank you, Olivia. Thank you. Great to be here.

Yes, absolutely. So happy to have you both.

Well, welcome Fred and Bruce. But I want to start off with Bruce. What was it like growing up with your father being a prominent attorney in the area that you guys grew up?

Well, my father is Bruce Ringstrom Senior, so not only is he an attorney, but he and I have the exact same name. He ended up representing many of my classmates, so I got had interesting exchanges when I was in school. But what I remember most was how much he enjoyed the practice of law. He spent many years as a public defender and then moved into private practice. And he actually never told me to become an attorney. I think he recognized that if he had told me to do so,

I would have done the opposite. It was interesting. This is a comparatively small community even today. The total metro area is about 200,000. So 35, 40 years ago, it was considerably smaller. I encountered people on a regular basis who knew who my father was, who had either been represented by them or were police officers who had been cross-examined by him. And he was a very good example to me because he truly enjoyed his work. Not all lawyers do.

(: 04:47

Well, that's why I was going to ask you if you felt the pressure to follow in your father's footsteps, but it was actually the opposite. So what prompted you then to follow that career?

Well, I think it was seeing how much he enjoyed it, but also my father cross-examined me as a child. That was his way of parenting. And so I learned how to think my way through problems with a kind of rudimentary cross-examination. I also found myself lettering and speech and debate in high school. And then I actually enlisted in the Navy and I was involved in public speaking communication there. So.

It was a very organic thing for me. It made perfect sense. I never really thought I was going to do anything besides become an attorney.

So Fred, I'm assuming your son is Fred Bryant Jr.

It's Tom.

(: 05:38

He's happy.

He's named after my f-

okay. that's an interesting connection. Well, what's it like running a firm with your son?

We enjoy it. It's really fun. I don't know if it's a funny story or not, but I'll tell you this story anyway. He and I have always been best friends. As I raised him, he was just always special to me. He was my only son. One day I come home from work and my wife's there with my daughter and she goes, who's your best friend? And of course I didn't even say, I said, well, Tommy's my best friend. My wife stares me down she goes, well, you're my best friend. I said, uh-oh.

you

(: 06:13

So I called Tommy immediately and I said that if Paula asked you who your best friend is, tell her it's her.

you

Well, when your son was just a kid, did he ever get to see you in the courtroom?

Yeah, when I was with my other firm, the first firm I started with, he used to work in our back room when he was in high school. He would do the filing and do the running. Back then we didn't have faxes and stuff. So if you had to deliver a letter or deliver a pleading, he would run it down to the courthouse. And so when I would go to trial, he would come along. He'd kind of sit in the back and watch, but yeah, he enjoyed it.

And Bruce, aside from feeling it as a kid being cross-examined by your father, did you actually get to see him in action as well as a young kid?

(: 06:55

I did. He brought me to court when I was eight years old. I remember seeing him at council table as a small child. I remember between hearings, the judge calling me up to the bench and talking to me and giving me some advice. That was a relationship that actually persisted for about 20 years before that judge passed away. And then I saw him in court many times after that. Also being this is a small community, if he represented anyone of any prominence, I would see him on television. And so,

I did get to see him in action probably more than children of other lawyers may have been able to see their parents do the same.

Hey Fred, what do you think prompted your son to follow you into the law?

I think just being around it, he used to, like I say, he would do some running for us back in the day and he was around my mentors. My other partners were my senior partners and he enjoyed talking to them. And I think he just liked the middle aspect of it, just kind of the parry back and forth, you know, and thinking through a problem and trying to build a case is what we do on the plaintiff's side.

Steve and I actually have a unique connection to this as well because we are married and we work together. We have a family and we work together. So how has working with your family in this way helped shape your perspective on the law and even how you try cases? Bruce.

(: 08:16

Well, I was shaped by the way I think about the law through just being my father's son for all those many years. actually, because I was in the Navy stationed in San Diego, and then I went to college in law school, I was 32 when I graduated from law school. My first job out of law school was actually far away from where my father practiced. So by the time he and I started working together, I won't say that I was a fully formed attorney, but I've had six or seven years of real experience.

And so at 39 or 40, when my father and I prepared to try our first case together, he was still the more experienced lawyer, but I had a lot more to bring to the table than I would have had it been a green 25 year old. And so I have, I've been grateful that my father's been somewhat deferential to my judgments, but I've also learned that, you know, having been an attorney for 46 years, he's got that 50,000 hours of experience and he can intuit things that

can't necessarily do. we've worked collaboratively very well together. still practices in my firm to this day.

And just going through your website, you know, we poke around and we stalked you a little bit. I just imagine like, you know, just looking at, know your partner, Dane, who we love. And, and just looking, you know, at the firm, I'm just like, they have like a Yoda there that they can kind of just go to and, and, like, get the the the knowledge from that, you know, that experience. So it's great to hear that that that is sounds like some sort of

basically how it runs or how that relationship is.

(: 09:57

You know, and assuming that most of your audience for this particular podcast are other practicing attorneys, one thing that I did was I made sure that my father's caseload concerns exactly the kinds of cases that he's interested in and that he has no administrative responsibilities. That means even at 76, he gets to really enjoy his work and he gets to bring his best self to bear. I think if I put any more

burden on him, he would, like most people at 76, retire. as I tell him, most of his mentors died in the courthouse at 87 to 90, so he's got a few years to go.

Fred, how has working with your family shaped your perspective on the law and how you try cases?

think what Tom brings to me is a fresh approach being younger. And you know, he was in law school when it was became more when research was different and everything else. So he had a lot of stuff that I never learned when I was in law school 40 some years ago. And we just work well together. It's kind of a yin and yang approach. You know, we'll go through cases together and talk him through. And of course, he has his approach to it. He's very practical in his approach.

Bruce was talking about the administrative side of it. He basically runs the firm. always kid people and say, I work for him. And so I get to practice law and Tommy does the administrative stuff and he does a good job at it. But it's really nice to have that relationship with him. We kind of keep our business and personal relationship apart until we have lunch together. We always make a point that I have a little conference table in my office. And so we always.

(: 11:35

If we're available, always try to have lunch together each day and just kind of that's where we talk about family things like how is Freddie hitting at baseball and you know what's Rosie doing and cheer and things like that. But then when we're working, I mean, we're here to work and we we learn from each other.

Yeah, I love that you mentioned that because I think too, when it is family working together, boundaries are a little bit more blended. But then on the other hand, there is a shorthand, right? I know Steve's strengths and he knows my strengths and some of the things that I'd rather do than he'd rather do. And in that respect, we can kind of balance it out. So I totally get what you're saying. And do you notice that same thing, Bruce?

that kind of the boundaries sometimes are kind of meshed together. Like for example, now it came back to me that, you know, we taught many years alongside Roger Dodd and his son Matt. And so even in the trial skills clinics, you know, he wouldn't refer to Roger as dad or even, you know, even at lunch, he would just say, go ask Roger or let me ask Roger, whatever that might be.

So do you also try to keep that kind of separation? What are the boundaries like with you, Bruce?

But it's interesting. yeah, because my father and I have the exact same name, we refer to each other as senior or junior and everyone else does. And usually it's a shorthand. You just say senior or junior. We tell judges to do the same thing. There was a few years when my dad and I were working together where we actually did have a little bit of friction because as I got more successful and I saw

(: 13:14

ways to achieve outcomes that were desirable. It kind of came up against his long time experience. And so there was a certain amount of tension, but at this point, first senior is of counsel. And so he actually has no direct obligations to the firm other than those he elects to undertake. That is to say the cases he works on. My job is to make sure that those cases fit his personality and that he's compensated properly for that. And so the

I would say, to his credit, he's at a stage of his career where I found the balance for him and he's prepared to sort of show up and work. And he will push back and disagree with me, but it's an odd situation where I feel a lot of deference from my dad because at this point he does trust me and he knows that I wanna make sure that as long as he's practicing, he's doing it in a way that he finds satisfying and that is good for our clients.

I think the thing I'm hearing from both working relationships for you and for Fred, there's a tremendous amount of trust between the family that you're working with. I think that's so fantastic that the things that you can accomplish when that's settled and that's a great foundation of that foundation of trust. I just find that inspiring. Today, we are going to get to it. We have two cross examinations to get to.

And today is a criminal matter, but only Bruce, as we've mentioned, is a criminal defense attorney and has a criminal defense practice. But Fred, you specialize in civil plaintiffs litigation, and that is completely on purpose.

Yep, we love getting fresh points of view from lawyers with different specialties. And this, because this out of a box approach is actually reveals some new discoveries. And even for those of you listening, you're going to get some new ideas, some fresh questions and chapters that you can take to your next trial as well, whether or not you do the same type of law, it's still really a lot that transfers over to what you do as well, no matter your focus.

(: 15:26

So let's talk about today's case. I'm going to break it down for you. This is the case of the state of Idaho versus Darla Roberts. In this criminal case, the defendant Darla Roberts is charged with obstructing justice after her son Gunnar Roberts, who had an outstanding warrant, was found hiding in a locked shed behind her home. The incident occurred on the morning of October 12th, 2023 in Twin Falls, Idaho, when Darla's daughter

and son arrived at her trailer under surveillance by Officer G. Brown. After the search of the home and denials from the occupants, Officer Brown found Gunner in the padlocked backyard shed. Darla claims that she was unaware of Gunner's presence and did not have the shed key on her at the time.

So in this episode, Bruce and Fred, you will be cross-examining Officer Brown, challenging his version of the events and probing for inconsistencies to support your client's claim that she did not knowingly aid her son in his attempt to evade arrest. And today I will be playing the part of Officer Gregory Brown.

Yes, and he's been prepping all morning, all night. yeah, this is his big moment here. H of E are gonna have about 10 minutes to cross, but sometimes we'd to go a little bit longer, because sometimes the juicy stuff just hasn't, you still got it on the page and hasn't been said yet. But in the interest of time, regardless, you can confirm ahead of time, potentially, the admissions.

that you've already covered with this witness. So if you don't necessarily wanna start in one place, you wanna cut to the chase a little bit more, we can certainly do that. In that respect though, Bruce, and what is your approach then when it comes to having very little discovery for a witness like this? How do you sort of kind of sift it all and put it all together?

(: 17:19

Well, you know, at beginning of my career, I was a public defender, and so I literally would have 100 cases. They would go to trial at times, not necessarily of my choosing, and cross-examination ended up being the most powerful tool I had to create reasonable doubt. I didn't even have enough time to get investigators involved in certain cases, and it can be an overwhelming situation. really, a core

element of criminal defense cross-examination is laying bare the evidence that should be there but isn't. That under a rational situation, we would expect to find evidence x, y, and z. some of that, the way a cross gets built in, and I think this is true in plaintiffs' work, according to my plaintiff's friends, but certainly in criminal work, it's using what we often call surplus reality. That is to say,

Imagine the exchange with the witness. What are the possible answers that a witness could provide? And what is logically required? If, for example, there's something about a gas pedal in a squad car that's relevant to the case, I can assume without evidence that the vehicle had a gas pedal and that this officer would understand how to put his foot under a gas pedal.

or get his foot jammed in or whatever. So it's imagining these scenarios that way the cross examination can flow. It's a limiting factor too, if you don't have as much evidence. But one of the best parts about not having the evidence is that it does create a kind of surprise with the witness. I have been told Fred can weigh in on his own expert understanding, but when there's a deposition on anything and everything,

There's fewer places to hide. There's fewer surprises. Here there can be explosive surprises in criminal cases.

(: 19:20

I love that idea of, you know, we've talked about it before, as far as the superpower of great attorneys is curiosity. it's in criminal defense, it's not just a superpower, it's necessity to have that constant curiosity and looking for opportunities to unpack more evidence as you're going through. That's a really great way to look at it. And I think anybody, any attorneys from any other practice,

definitely, hopefully they'll catch a few things today from you that they can implement in their own depositions or cross examinations as well.

Very good. Okay, Bruce, whenever you're ready, the witness is yours.

Good afternoon, Officer Brown.

Good afternoon.

(: 20:09

Officer Brown, is it fair to say that in a meaningful sense this was your case, not another detective's or another officer's case?

(: 20:24

Can you be specific about which charges you're speaking about? Sure.

Well, we have charges for multiple witnesses. We're obviously here for the trial of Darla Roberts. The case of Gunner Roberts, is it fair to say that you were the principal law enforcement officer responsible for that case? And the case for Alexis Roberts, you were the principal law enforcement officer for that case? Were you the principal law enforcement officer for the Jeremy Miller case?

Yes.

(: 20:51

Yes.

(: 20:58

Yes.

and you are indeed the principal law enforcement officer for this case, the Darla Roberts case.

Correct.

(: 21:11

You have met with the prosecutor on this case a number of times, is that true? And it's fair to say that it's acceptable for law enforcement officers to meet with prosecutors in preparation of a case, correct?

Correct.

(: 21:26

Yes.

(: 21:30

In the process of meeting with the prosecutor and preparing for your testimony, you've reviewed all of the evidence in this case. Is that a fair statement? You've reviewed the evidence. In fact, in the other cases, the cases that related to the matter that we're on trial for today, correct?

I have.

(: 21:47

Yes, I'm well versed in the previous charges that led to this case.

You also would have reviewed all of the reports from the other officers who were there at the scene, correct? You would have reviewed all of the squad videos from the officers who were there at the scene, correct? You would have reviewed any body cams that would have been at the scene as well, correct?

Yes.

(: 22:15

Yes, sir.

(: 22:21

Would you have reviewed any radio dispatch recordings related to this case?

I don't believe that was necessary in this in this case as far as

(: 22:42

So Officer Brown, there's two questions. You're saying it wasn't necessary. Do you know whether there was radio dispatch traffic at all in this case?

Well, yes, there was. just as far as the I thought you meant the reviewing of of that. I believe that is part of the report, the initial report. I didn't review that because I didn't think it was germane to anything that was to be discussed today.

All right, so you've reviewed everything else that we've discussed except you don't believe that you've reviewed the radio dispatch, correct?

not since the initial report.

Very good.

(: 23:27

You would have reviewed, in fact, however, records or reports from the suspects as they were brought to the jail. Is that correct?

Yes.

That would have included any security video as those people were brought in and their property was inventory, correct?

Yes.

(: 23:54

Officer Brown, you understand that the location of this investigation and the arrest of the other suspects was at Kit Frost's home. Is that true?

Yes, sir.

(: 24:11

And Darla Roberts actually lived with Kit Frost. You understand.

(: 24:21

It's your understanding that KitFrost is disabled.

was disabled. I believe he's deceased now.

He is deceased now. During the last few years of his life, he was a disabled person, true?

That's correct.

He was so disabled, in fact, that Darla Roberts had to live with him to act as his caregiver, correct?

(: 24:45

Correct.

(: 24:51

And you did go into the residence. Is that true?

Yes.

So you're familiar with how this trailer home was laid out.

Correct.

You saw where Kit Frost's bedroom was?

(: 25:06

Yes.

You saw the sort of, you know, the equipment and the material that Darla Roberts used to take care of kit frost.

I saw equipment there. don't know what equipment was used for his caretaking. To be honest, I'm not was knowledgeable on the medical aspects of all that equipment, but there was medical equipment in the trailer.

Sure, sufficient for you to understand that this person needed pretty extensive care, correct?

For my understanding, yes.

(: 25:46

And from your understanding, Kit Frost actually, not only did he need medical assistance, but he needed help with things like even putting on his own clothes. Is that true?

Yes, I believe he wasn't able to maneuver around or he wasn't very mobile. he needed help.

(: 26:14

Now in the morning of this incident, this was October 12th, 2023, is that true? Now if I told you that the calendar says that was a Thursday, would you have any reason to doubt that?

Yes.

(: 26:32

And the date of your report is that this incident began at something like 7 53 a.m. Does that sound accurate?

Yes.

So this was not an overnight investigation.

No, it was not. It started that morning.

Okay, and so the Twin Falls, Idaho Police Department would have been at full staff at that time.

(: 26:55

Yes.

(: 27:01

At the point that you saw the vehicle pull up to the trailer, you called for backup.

(: 27:10

When I was, actually I called for backup before that, I had been surveilling Alexis Roberts. And so I had been surveilling her and we were expecting her to stop at some point. And so I had called for backup before that.

Yes.

(: 27:33

And having called for backup before that gave you at least the advantage of backup was there to arrive basically immediately the moment that you approached the house. Okay.

Correct.

(: 27:53

And when you approach the house with backup, that was essentially right after the suspects went into the house.

I believe it was within minutes, five minutes max.

So you have your backup waiting outside for five minutes before you go up to the house.

I was waiting first for the backup to arrive. They were a little bit further away. So I was waiting for them to arrive. And then once we knew where they stopped, and then once we did that, we made sure that we're all on the same page and approached the house. Maybe less than five minutes, maybe just a couple of minutes.

Okay.

(: 28:43

Maybe a couple of minutes. Per your earlier testimony, you had called ahead of time, so they were already in route. right. And this was a trailer home that you were going to approach, correct? There were other trailer homes surrounding it.

Yes, that's correct.

(: 29:03

Yes.

Okay, the Idaho Falls Trailer Park is a raid like a conventional trailer park. There's not a lot of hedgerows or trees between the trailers. They're sort of just lined up in an orderly fashion. Is that correct?

That's correct and each one has their own little small yard. I believe that they all have, you know, it's all part of their, their lot or their plot or their.

(: 29:34

Now.

When you went up to the house, you had an arrest warrant for Gunnar Roberts, correct?

I had a arrest warrant for Gunnar Roberts and for Jeremy Miller.

All right.

(: 29:54

You did not have an arrest warrant with the address of Kit Frost's home on it. Is that correct? Okay.

it did not.

(: 30:08

And you did not have a search warrant for the residents in question either, did you?

When you got to the door, however, you were let into the residence.

So there was a consent to allow you into the house where Kit Frost lived, correct?

Yes, and I mean, we had probable cause to search the residence because we had identified both Gunner Roberts and Jeremy Miller and saw them enter the residence.

And whether you have probable cause or not, they let you in the door, correct?

(: 30:44

Correct.

(: 30:53

So at that point, you come in and.

You don't see Darla Roberts in the residence at that moment, is that correct?

Not immediately. We identified and apprehended both Alexis Roberts and Jeremy Miller.

Okay.

And following that, you found Darla Roberts in Kit Fox's bedroom.

(: 31:26

She came out of the bedroom. So when I first encountered her, she was not in the bedroom. She was coming out of the bedroom towards the, I guess the main greeting area, which also doubles as a living room and kitchenette or kitchen.

(: 31:50

How many officers did you have with you, Officer Brown?

We had four officers total. So we had two officers on the outside, the perimeter of the trailer of the lot. then I also had an officer with me at that time.

I it was the opposite of their cheeks.

two officers inside, including you, and two officers outside performing surveillance.

Yes, it was a officer Dell and officer Karcher on the on the outside.

(: 32:31

And per the earlier question I asked you, you've reviewed Officer Dell and Officer Karcher's report as to what they saw during their surveillance, correct?

(: 32:54

Now, Officer Brown, at some point...

You elected to investigate the shed in the back of Kit Frost's, behind Kit Frost's home, is that correct?

Correct, after we searched the trailer, the two bedrooms that are in the trailer, not seeing who we saw enter the trailer, Mr. Gunner Roberts, the only probable place that he could have went to, and we hadn't searched yet, was that shed behind the trailer.

And this is the shed with the sliding door.

I believe there is a sliding door, yes.

(: 33:43

All right. And the sliding door has a lock on it.

It had a lock on it, yes.

And despite the lock, there was a gap of approximately one foot that the sliding door didn't close.

At the time that we were looking to search, we wanted to open that door. Can't get a clear view of what's going on in the trailer, or I'm sorry, in the shed through any gaps in the door. At that time, we weren't aware of any gaps in that door.

So the gap didn't provide you enough opportunity to see inside the door, to see inside the shed.

(: 34:29

Yeah, I don't even know if that was even a foot after inspecting it after we apprehended everybody. We did inspect that shed and I would disagree that it was a foot.

Now, Officer Brown, in the process of preparing this case, you did generate a report of your own, correct? You generated that report shortly after the incident in question, correct? You generated that report when all of the facts were fresh in your mind, correct? You made it a point to include any details that you thought were, in your words,

Correct.

(: 35:07

Correct.

(: 35:13

germane to the investigation, correct? And in your police report, you indicated that the gap on the shed was approximately one foot. Isn't that correct?

Correct.

(: 35:26

I'd have to, I won't fight you if that's what it says. know, upon thinking about that space though, it was definitely not over a foot.

Alright Bruce, that is time! And that was 15 minutes, not 10, so I did like-

my God. here's what's so interesting about this. I knew we only had two attorneys doing it. I saw, you know, if you do a lot of cross, you get lost. You get lost in the examination. You don't feel the time. But part of what I wanted to do here was build up the predicate questions.

That is to say a really big cross with a really big witness, you can spend an hour working predicate questions and you don't get to the good stuff until the other side of that. And sometimes it feels a little boring, but once you pivot and you start to get to the harder questions, that's when the gravity in the courtroom changes. And so although it would be fun to be a little more tactical and aggressive and across like this,

I wanted to make sure that I got that predicate stuff locked down. So 15 minutes, sorry it took me so long, but I was just getting warmed up.

(: 36:48

I love it though because I did, knew that that shift was coming, that shift that you're talking about and I could, I felt it instantly. So I'm glad that you can feel that too because you never know, right? Cause you are so locked into what you're doing and your goals that you don't know like, you know, what your audience might be feeling, but I was totally right there with you. Aside from that, did you, you know, I know there could have been more, but how did you feel that that went?

I felt that went really well and it was interesting. So I did it. We talked about surplus reality at the beginning. I had this vision from the beginning as I was preparing this cross that Officer Brown calls for backup. He's got all this backup. He's called ahead of time. That way, as soon as these people go into the trailer, they can immediately go right up there, which means

Darla Roberts doesn't have much of an opportunity to even do what they're saying she did. That is to say, go out, secrete her son into the shed or whatever the case may be. And Steve, I was prepared for Steve to back me off on that, but he actually said no, because I don't think Steve knew where I was going. He's like, no, actually, I called ahead of time. And then once you realized I was making a little progress, you're like, well, they got there a little bit later.

Maybe it was five minutes, maybe it was three minutes, but I kind of still had you on the ropes there. And that's a surplus reality example where you really just have to think through what are the range of responses the witness can provide and which one's the most productive. If you're getting a lot of compliance with the witness, sometimes you can be a little riskier with your questions. But obviously I know Steve is a witness is very cagey. So I was careful that I get too reckless or not be too intrepid.

with what I was trying to get out of it.

(: 38:45

Yes, I love it. just, it's like the executioner slowly step by step inching closer to his demise. You know, you were talking about curiosity beforehand as well, or we were. Is that, your first question was open-ended. So is that part of that quote unquote curiosity or just kind of staying open in terms of what he might say?

Yeah, I think so. I'm not, know, baby lawyers are taught, don't ask a question to which you don't know the answer. And that's a good starting point. But the better you get within your field, the more comfortable you are asking open-ended questions. And in this particular case, the open-ended question really doesn't hurt me. I mean, one, I expect Officer Brown eventually to say, yeah, it was my case.

which allows me to then put huge responsibility on him and his failure to examine evidence. And if it's not his case, then he doesn't know a bunch of stuff and he's not even a very good witness for the state, right? And so I wasn't afraid of that question or of the answer to that question.

Yes, either way it works for you and you can use it I totally agree with you because now we get principal law enforcement officer multiple times because you then laid out all of the all of the other cases or you know that he's been working on as a principal law officer

Well, if you noticed, I didn't like that, Bruce, because I made you define everything after that, which then in turn, you got what you wanted and actually made it really clear.

(: 40:25

Right, and so that was a moment, and Steve and Olivia, you know this, when you didn't give me what I wanted, I reverted to a very narrow Posner and Dodd style, you know, one fact per question, and I knew you weren't gonna be able to wriggle out without looking dishonest, and at the beginning of a cross, you're not gonna do that. One of the things that great cross-examination preparation does is it allows you

to take advantage of these little nuggets that you can't necessarily anticipate. So you made a big show of talking about this Officer Dell and Officer Carter doing surveillance outside. Well, that's not in the report. And if I didn't like it, I would have attacked you for it not being in the report. But I love it. Because now you have told me that there are two officers outside of this trailer. How they would not be able to see what happens in the shed

Yep.

(: 41:23

It just defies reason and common sense. But I leave it there, you noticed. I tagged it on a piece of paper. I was gonna come back at the end and really hammer you with

Yes. I'm glad you said that too, because we were just talking to an attorney on a previous episode and they have a little piece of paper sort of, you know, on the side where they note extra things like that that are just kind of gold to use later for closing argument. So what do you sort of tag that for typically? Do you do the same thing?

I do in an actual trial or a contested hearing, it gets a little bit more complicated logistically because I'm writing notes on my legal pad of like the salient things the officer is saying. And then of course I have my structured cross. I also might have impeachment documents or exhibits. So there's a lot going on in a really comprehensive cross. Typically at the end of the cross or the end of the day, I will

go through the witnesses answers and find what do I want to use for closing? What do I want to try and use against future witnesses? But it's really important to harvest that gold before it sort of slips away.

I love it. The thing that I wanted to share too, from my perspective of preparing for this character is that you identified the same kind of gray areas that when we wrote the case first, this mock case up, and then we sent it to you guys. But then after going through it, I'm like, I have to prepare for this, the actual character that that you're going to be crossing. And I got to put all I got to fill in all these blanks that are there. And, and I was

(: 43:08

kind of going to the same areas too to make those make sense for my testimony. And it's great that you identified the same things as far as how come they didn't see what was going on in the shed with people out there scoping it out, regardless if we were at our vehicles or waiting or whatever, that must have happened pretty quick.

And I just love that you went there because that was one of those things for me. I was like, I gotta fill that in. I gotta make sure that that makes sense as far as the bang bang of it, that it's not too bang bang.

Juries need the practical realities surrounding questions. So I posited in a question that this was a conventionally structured trailer park. could have fought me on that and it would have limited me. I mean, it wouldn't have hurt me too bad, but it would have hurt me a little bit. But I conjectured that likely you were gonna agree with me about that because then if I had done the full cross and I would have gotten to these two officers,

Again, they would have clearly been able to see the shed and so on. I defended a criminal vehicular homicide many, you know, eight, nine years ago where there was a fatal car accident at a cross section. And I spent hours at that intersection looking at it and trying to figure out how would my client not have seen the motorcyclist. And I was out there for five or 10 hours before it hit me.

that the motorcyclist would have been obscured by the signs down the highway. Because it doesn't make sense. How would a motorcyclist hide behind a sign? Well, if you sit there for a few hours, you realize it happens over and over again. I couldn't tell that story until I really brought that into my mind. Sometimes you can do that with imagination. Sometimes you just have to do that by doing your best to be in the situation and look at

(: 45:10

We should go to Fred. Fred, was your, what did you take away from this cross?

I think the first thing I noticed is just Bruce's attitude. I think he just conveys a confidence in himself and a command. And I think when he asks a question, he's confident, regardless of what your response may be. And that in turn, think what you would tell me, I guess, as a witness, it kind of makes the witness kind of step back. You're not really looking for a fight as such because this person's in command and he could embarrass you. So that was the first thing I noticed about Bruce. just

He just kind of oozed a confidence of where he was going and where he wanted to take this thing. And I think that sets kind of the tone for the entire examination when he says, you he, could have challenged him on a question, but you're kind of, you're kind of stepping back a little bit. You don't know if you want this fight. And that's kind of the impression I had as far as Bruce's, attitude and demeanor. I thought it was, I thought his questioning was very, very good. I mean, it was just, he was telling a story, just, you know,

bit by bit and he was knowing where he was gonna go and he had a plan all along and I just thought that was very evident when you watched him question you.

Yeah, I totally agree. I think that's even, you know, it speaks to what you were just talking about, Bruce, is, you know, the hours potentially that you would spend in a place to kind of figure out every angle, because your play by play of the events is so good. And it has your listener in mind, because it's, so incremental, you described the location itself, like the lot, the actual, you know, home, and then the shed itself. So

(: 46:52

I have that picture in my head and even sort of the probable things that he's saying and how they fit into that location because you laid it out so clearly, I can very easily picture it in my head without going down any rabbit holes, which is just a testament to, you know, all of the sort of avenues that you think about ahead of time and the angles that you kind of that you prepare. The one thing that I would say that I came away with was the strong sense of you said there was she had no warrant for kits for entering kits residents. No.

But and something like regardless of that, she gave you consent. Yes, that was so strong. And then the other thing that you said after that was whether or not you had probable cause. They let you in, meaning that she doesn't have anything to hide. She wouldn't let you in if she had something to hide. She wouldn't give you consent. Her open door means that she has nothing to hide. And so that was so clear because of how you walked us through that. That is what stuck out to me as a listener.

and obviously serves your client very well.

I felt like as the witness as the officer Brown, like that was the moment where really like I wanted to get really careful with what I was going to tell you. And I was going to try and give you as many yeses and nos as possible, just so I don't volunteer too much because the moment I did volunteer a little bit about the gap in the shed.

we got into it and it was like, this is here it goes. I know, but like, felt like a need to be careful and not, and not slip up too much because I knew that you're going to take care, like take advantage of that.

(: 48:35

And that speaks to some, you know, feelings that I have about the cross that I think I could have been better at. I mean, there is a strategy in a cross examination to not have that overwhelming sense of command and confidence, you know, to be a little bit more like Matlock, a little bit more bumbling. The bumbling is actually not real and you've prepared all the way through, but it's a little bit softer. So they do get more relaxed.

I don't know that I would have used that strategy had you been a real witness in a trial, but I could have. The other thing that I would have worked on more was care with my language because good police officers, like most good witnesses, if you misspeak or if you frame a question that provides any seam for an objection, if you just characterize, you know, the wall is yellow when it's, you know.

some variation of yellow that's just different enough for a witness to object, they're going to object. And so to be much more careful about the language, to get more compliance without sort of showcasing tiny little quibbles, that's the kind of polish that you put on a cross to make sure that you can really move more quickly. I'm someone who has no problem being silent for a long period of time with a witness. Some people think that that's great because it heightens the tension.

I just know that I want to think about my question before I ask answer or ask it. And if you are fully prepared, when you do pause, it really is strategic rather than a moment to think because you figured out, know, there's only so many ways a witness can respond to any given question.

Yeah, and I know we've talked about that before. You are so good at the pause and it's not just about creating tension, but it's just about being mindful of where you're now switching to. think this time when it happened in this cross, you were switching topics and it actually, could tell it got Steve a little bit off guard. Like, oh God, we're gonna go to this section now. Okay. So it really does even unnerve a witness because of that silence. And again, it might feel as a list, as a.

(: 50:48

If you're the one offering the silence, it might feel a lot longer of a pause in your head than we actually feel it as a listener, but it could be a great reset moment and a great kind of way to, to, to catch somebody off guard. Did you feel off guard? yeah.

Well, great. That was an excellent first cross examination. Thank you so much, Bruce. I feel like I just learned a whole lot of good stuff right there. I'm hopefully our listeners are as well. But we have one more cross to get to. We're going to see Fred's out of the box taking an approach that, you know, from from a plaintiff's attorney. And we'll see what happens. This is part of the fun of cross lab is experimenting. So we'll be right back after this quick break.

And we want to talk about really quickly our partners at LawPods. Lawyers think that LawPods are just the company that produces the TLU and Trial Lawyer Nations podcasts. But actually, they create a lot of podcasts with lawyers just like you to help reach non-lawyers, aka your potential clients.

That's right, podcasts let your audience get to know and trust you. And Robert Ingalls and his team make podcasting easy.

With over a hundred million people expected to listen to podcasts this year, there's never been a better time to get this as a tool for getting your practice out there to the public.

(: 52:16

And to get more info, visit LawPods, L-A-W-P-O-D-S.com. Tell them we sent you. We want to tell you about what we do at Trial House. We help attorneys in private sessions and in coaching to help you be a better advocate for your client.

We can help you in so many different ways from learning new trial skills or cross-examination skills to your opening statements and even working with your clients to be great advocates for themselves in depositions or in cross-examinations and trial.

The best way to reach out to us is to go to our website, trialhouse.com. That's H-A-U-S, trialhouse.com. And we've got two free resources for attorneys on there. One to help you craft a compelling narrative for your jury and another to help you get storytelling gold from your witnesses that's gonna help you put a wonderful case together. And you can schedule a 30 minute.

storytelling consultation with us.

And no strings attached, no pressure. We just want to meet you, we want to talk with you, and learn more about your practice and a case that's coming up. You might actually get some really good advice at the very, very least. Once again, trialhouse.com, H-A-U-S. We hope to talk to you soon.

(: 53:43

All right, so we are back. are going to be ready for our second cross-examination and we are so excited to have Fred here. All right, Fred, whenever you're ready, the witness is yours.

All right. Good afternoon, Officer Brown. Now, Officer Brown, you are a patrol officer. And as a patrol officer, you're kind of on the front lines of law enforcement. Would that be a true statement?

Good afternoon.

(: 54:11

I suppose so, yes.

You're on the streets and in the field actually enforcing the laws, maintaining order, ensuring the public safety.

Correct.

Correct.

Yes.

(: 54:24

And that entails as a patrol officer, you have to investigate whether laws are being broken when you're called out to a scene. And you have to apprehend those who are suspected of breaking the law. And you have to detain those suspected of breaking the law. And oftentimes when you're called out, there may not be any law broken at all, but you're just trying to basically calm a situation.

Yes.

(: 54:40

Correct.

(: 54:47

Yes.

Now as a police officer, and particularly as a patrol officer on the front lines, you're required to know the law.

Correct.

And as a police officer, of course, you get special training from that through the police academy.

Yes, and with continuing education after the academy as well.

(: 55:10

Correct. And at the police academy, that's where you're trained to be a police officer initially. That's where you go in order to become a police officer.

Yeah, the foundational training that we saying.

They have the foundational training, includes physical training, includes use of firearms. It includes simulations of situations you may encounter in the field in real life situations. It includes mental preparation for the stresses that are involved in the job.

Yes.

Yes.

(: 55:34

Correct.

(: 55:43

Nothing prepares you for being a police officer until you're out there in the field.

And part of the specialized training you get at the police academy and that you get in your continuing education is to know what actions constitute breaking the law. And it's to know what elements are involved in each violation.

Correct.

(: 56:04

Correct.

It's a kind of specialized training that only a police officer gets through the academy and through their experience in the field.

Yes.

And you can't be a police officer, and you can't pass your courses at the academy without knowledge of what elements constitute a crime.

Correct.

(: 56:23

So when you arrive on a scene of a situation, you're often called to volatile situations. fact, that's mostly what you're called to. You're often called to violent situations.

Yes.

(: 56:35

Yes.

You're often called out into confusing and chaotic situations.

Yes.

And there's no time when you're in these situations to look up what the elements of a crime are. You have to be able to react.

You need to have a good grasp of the law when you get there and know how to handle the situation in yourself.

(: 56:55

Because you have to react quickly in these situations. You have to react decisively in these situations. And you have to secure order in the middle of these chaotic and confusing situations.

Yes.

And you can't really act impulsively in these situations. You have to have a firm knowledge of what the elements are when you charge somebody with a crime.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that question?

You have to have a firm knowledge of what the elements of a crime are before you charge someone with it in these situations.

(: 57:30

Yes.

th,: 2023

We were actually surveilling his sister Alexis Roberts with the suspicion that she was associating with Gunner and another known felon.

and kind of a common term for surveilling would be following or watching.

Correct.

(: 57:57

and you suspected she may put you in contact with Gunner Roberts, her brother.

as well as Jeremy, we had suspicions that there could have been other felons that she would have connected us with.

Okay, and at this particular time you were driving solo.

I had Officer Cheeks with me.

Okay, so Officer Cheeks and you were in your car and you actually saw Alexis Roberts get into her car, morning. And also you watched Gunner Roberts get into his sister's car. And you also saw Jeremy Miller get in his sister's car.

(: 58:24

Correct. Correct.

(: 58:30

Correct.

(: 58:35

Yes, and this was at, it started at Alexis Roberts residence.

So the beginning of the surveillance was at Alexis Roberts residence. And it was while at Alexis Roberts residence, you saw her get in her car. You saw her brother get in her car. And you saw the other gentleman that you were looking for on an outstanding warrant, Jeremy Miller, get in her car. And when she got in her car and drove away, you and Officer Cheeks followed that car. You followed that car until it stopped.

Yes.

Yes.

(: 59:01

Correct.

(: 59:10

Correct. We wanted to wait until the vehicle stopped at their destination. And that way we'd ensure public safety so we're not encouraging any kind of chase or causing any dangerous situations.

So you followed the car until it reached its destination.

Correct.

When it reached its destination, it stopped and parked curbside. To that nation. And.

Correct.

(: 59:46

You did not pull the car over while you were following it.

No, at that moment I had called for backup and we were waiting for more officers to arrive before we apprehended the suspects.

Were you calling for backup while you were following the car or did you call for backup after it arrived at its destination?

We had called when we were following Alexis' vehicle, but it wasn't a very long drive from Alexis Roberts' residence to Kit's residence.

Now at the time you were following Alexis Roberts vehicle, did not know where her ultimate destination would be.

(: 01:00:27

No, we did not.

orning at the trailer home at: 1154

Correct.

(: 01:00:45

No, no we did not.

of the car when it arrived at: 1154

nts enter the trailer home at: 1150

We were further down the street.

approximately 25 yards away from where they had parked their vehicle.

(: 01:01:23

And you were confident that you were, that they did not know that you were following them.

We were fairly confident, yes.

And from your vantage point then, I think you said 20, 25 yards down the road, you could see the front of the trailer hull.

Correct. The trailer is as far as the trailer park goes, it's the trailer that's closest to the street.

And from your vantage point, could see clearly the front of that trailer that they entered.

(: 01:01:53

Yeah, the front and the side of the trailer, the south side of the trailer. So we were facing west, so we could see the south part and the eastern facing part of the trailer.

And the door was on this south part of the trailer.

There's actually two doors. There's one on the eastern end, the more narrow end, and then there was another door on the southern part, which is where they entered.

ollowing the car to arrive at: 1154

Correct.

(: 01:02:47

Correct.

and where you parked, had never been to this trailer before.

I have been to that trailer park, but the specific trailer I have not.

You had never staked out this specific trailer before.

We had not.

(: 01:03:04

No other officers were there when you arrived.

No, but shortly after we arrived, our backup came.

and UN Officer Cheek stayed put until backup arrived.

Correct.

set up inside the trailer at: 1154

(: 01:03:25

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

In other words, this was not a stakeout that had been earlier arranged at this trailer. And to your knowledge, there was no audio that had been set up in this trailer hoping to catch the criminals there that morning. To your knowledge, there was no video set up in this trailer hoping to the people there this morning.

No, sir.

(: 01:03:47

The only video that we had were on our body cams. And also the video in our police vehicles. Dash cams.

and your buddy.

(: 01:03:56

Dash cam. Okay. And those were on all throughout this incident. When you approached the trailer, your body cam was on. And the officers that accompanied you to the trailer, their body cams were also on. Now, from where you were, you and Officer Cheeks, while you were waiting for backup to arrive, you could not hear any conversation inside the trailer. You could not see any activity inside the trailer.

Correct.

(: 01:04:06

Correct.

(: 01:04:20

No.

(: 01:04:25

At that particular time when you and Officer Cheeks had followed this car to its destination and the three people got out, you don't know how many other people were in the trailer at that time.

We did not.

And in fact, that's probably one of reasons you call backup these uncertainties.

Correct. Yes.

And time is up. I'm gonna stop you there. Fred, how did that feel?

(: 01:04:48

Bye.

It felt all right. I don't feel like I got into the meat of it, but I'm kind of like Bruce. want to, I'm building something bigger for down the road. It's not, you know, this is not TV. This is real life and, and, and you're not going to, you know, get the shot right out of the, out of the bowel before the first commercial break. So you're building something that not only that you go after this witness, but like Bruce said, you're building for points that you can use later with other witnesses and with your, with your closing argument.

And so, you my approach and you know, from other courses I've taken with you is I'm probably over meticulous in the sense that I just, I do take it kind of one fact at a time and one issue. And I don't want a lot of talking back and forth. I want to control this witness from the outset. And I want the witness to follow me, but not necessarily, we're not in a contentious situation. I'm asking the question so vanilla and bland that he really like, like Bruce was saying, he really has no choice, but to follow me at this point, or he comes across completely in.

you know, incredible.

Yeah, I noticed that Fred. think you did exactly what you just set out to do. And I will say, just to reiterate, Fred has taken a lot of courses with us and we have worked on one fact at a time and making those questions just incremental questions where all the witness has to do is just say yes. And holy moly, you had Steve on a yes train for where he could not go anywhere but just say yes.

(: 01:06:14

you in terms of the sort of yes and method that we talk about to the point where you're boosting them up at the beginning so that yes, yes, yes, that's all he's saying, boosting them up and then you know, at least because of the work we've done with you, absolutely that's a setup for later. So I think you did exactly what you set out to do. You even had a trilogy in there, I think, quickly, decisively, create order. And I just love that you started out, he's on the front lines. I mean, what a great boost of.

He's in the streets, the fields, order and safety. That was really fantastic.

say where we ended up to I really loved what you were doing as far as the unknowns everything that we were not aware of at that time and kind of making that clear picture of of speculation of that I'm interested to see what what Bruce thinks about how that that could help in that kind of a case too yeah

Bruce, what did you find?

Well, I was struck by just the well-structured cross-examination, Fred. mean, was, as you said, you're meticulous, but also some of that's just a product of having examined so many witnesses over so many years. I do wonder, and you can maybe talk about it later, whether you get some conflict in your mind between your deposition examination style and your cross-examination style.

(: 01:07:45

You found a question that I didn't I couldn't figure out how to form which was You didn't plan to be or arrive at 1154 5th Street. I I knew that was relevant and I think I was hinting at it, but you found the question that basically Just got the exact answer and then you were able to say, you know, there was no stake out here There was no audio in there beforehand. There was no video beforehand really setting up

not that you would hit the conclusion with the cross-examination, but in your closing, they have no idea what was going on in there. This is absurd. You also do something that I wish I were better at. When you ask your direct leading question, you don't tag it at the end with, isn't that true? Isn't that a fair statement? Isn't that accurate? I am a confident cross-examiner, but that nervous tick I have of tagging it at the end,

is actually a little bit of evidence. don't want the witness to push back on me, whereas you don't do that. You just ask the question and you stop talking until they answer. And I think that's really powerful. I personally, as a criminal offense attorney, was a little worried near the beginning when you were asking him, you know the law, you understand what the elements are, because this case wasn't, she wasn't arrested.

She was subject to a summons or a charge after the fact at least that's how I read the facts. Okay, and so I was curious I'm like

I thought he arrested her there on the spot because he was kind of frustrated with her.

(: 01:09:22

Yeah, I mean, and maybe it could have been true, but as I read the report really closely, I'm like, looks like the other three got arrested, but Darla wasn't. And so I was a little worried that you might kind of go that bridge too far because a judge would have shut you down had you said it was up to you, whether you are, you But I also really appreciated, you can still examine this cop about his knowledge of the law. Like, he knows what obstruction is.

And so by the end, when you argue closing, you know, you're talking about the elements and clearly the officer didn't understand whatever element two or element three. So I really appreciated it for somebody who doesn't do criminal defense. I was quite impressed at how you really control this witness.

You really did, Fred. How did you feel, Steve?

you know, it's funny, I felt, you know, kind of at ease because he built me up so much that I kind of felt a little like, felt like I think I, I volunteered a little bit more than I did, obviously with Bruce. And that was not something to say that, you know, Bruce's style was, was, you know, anything other than really great. It's just, it was a different kind of feel that I was having.

with that where with Bruce I was very much like on my my my you know Really watching it. I knew I'd get in real trouble if I if I slipped up but with with Bruce I felt like yeah, I can I can tell I'm the one that was in control. I was the one that was Completely knowledgeable was happening and and had the the situation scoped out and and All of that so when we got to those unknowns I didn't

(: 01:11:09

feel defensive about that at all. And maybe that was kind of, know, when Bruce was talking earlier about not necessarily bumbling fumbling, but just like kind of having that easy going delivery. Maybe that's what it got me got me into that.

It's kind of my strategy of who's the jerk now. If you build the witness up and you're acting like you're his friend and when he wants to fight you, when there's no reason to fight you, you kind of look at the jury like, what caused this? Why is he so mad? What's he hiding? What's the problem here? I mean, that's kind of my strategy on that is just go ahead and build it. And if you build somebody up, of course, they're more open to you too.

People like to talk about themselves and they like to be complimented. So it'd be pretty hard after I've complimented Steve for him to come back and say, Who's the jerk here, the defense attorney or the officer?

Yeah, I wrote down even just, you know, we're not usually in the same thing next to each other, but I could feel Steve's energy in a different way because even though in the same respect, Bruce and Fred, Steve didn't know where either of you are going for each. He definitely had a different energy. And maybe it is, you know, that yes. And thing that we're talking about when it comes to boosting them up first, because he still had the same sense, but it was just a different the defenses were down a little bit.

And on edge, this was not there for Steve on this.

(: 01:12:33

Yeah, I do want to say and you know, it's you both were like, didn't get to the meat of it. But I think for people who are listening to this, the foundation I with working with the attorneys that we've worked with for for these many years now, the importance of foundational chapters is paramount. If you don't have your foundational chapters, you can't get to the good stuff. So I think this was tremendously helpful for a lot of people. And I thought you guys both did a really great job.

of exploring those foundational chapters.

Above all, you're teachers, right? You have to teach your fact finder. And so that's exactly, you know, showing your chops in that way. That's exactly what you were doing. And obviously it gave him, you know, that sort of baseline of how to react. Really great work, both of you. So if you were to cross this witness tomorrow, what's something that you would take away from today? Bruce.

that this witness is KG and is prepared to

prepared to protect the case. Not all witnesses are going to protect the case. Most witnesses will protect themselves. And so that makes him more dangerous. that would change the strategy a little bit because when somebody is really really selfish witness and doesn't want to look bad, they're actually easier to get ugly facts out.

(: 01:14:11

So that makes you more dangerous. The most difficult witnesses I have ever examined, even more difficult than really smart physicians, are homicide detectives that have been doing it for 20, 30, 35 years. Like not only are they experts in their field, not only have they been cross-examined, possibly more than I've actually cross-examined witnesses, but they are really invested in

winning the case and they will throw themselves on on the altar to do.

Fred, how about you? What would you take away from today if you had to cross this witness tomorrow? Obviously you would change your focus. But aside from that, what would you take away?

I think Bruce's assessment is right. He's a dangerous witness still, and he's going to fight for the case. You've got to be real careful how you go about showing the inconsistencies or the unknowns in the situation.

Well, hey, one thing I did want to share with you, this case was actually submitted by a listener or the inspiration for it. you know, that's going to be really fun to be able to share this with them and hopefully give them some ideas of what they were looking to get out of this.

(: 01:15:36

I have to tell you something that's really fun. My father, Bruce Rankin Sr., represents someone charged exactly the same way right now, where it's a sibling who is accused of essentially obstructing or harboring a fugitive, and she had no idea that he was in the house. So the themes are exactly the same. So I'm excited to talk with Bruce Sr. about this.

That's exciting. And that is why we do this. This is so great because, know, even if you're not specifically in that area of the law, you could certainly face a witness like this and still reuse great chapters, foundational chapters, and any word choice, things like that, that you all did so clearly today that any attorney, regardless of the focus of law, use. I'm so, yeah, thank you for mentioning that. Should we talk about our three favorite things?

Three favorite things, go ahead.

I'm going to say Bruce's warrant versus consent. That was so clear. I thought that was spot on.

I will say this, the what I didn't know, the what I didn't know chapter. I didn't know a lot. And that's true in life, period. I don't know a whole lot.

(: 01:16:37

There's a lot of what you didn't

(: 01:16:45

And I would say also my third favorite thing is Fred. He did not intend to end up there. He did not intend to be there. I don't know the exact wording, but that was just gold. Fantastic. Yes. So before we close, Bruce, where can people find you and learn more about you and connect with you?

and possibly listen to you more.

criminal defense. We do some: 1983

How about you, Fred? Where can people connect with you and your law firm?

We are the Bryant Law Firm in Kansas City, Missouri. Bryantlawkc.com. And we do civil litigation and we do a lot of workers comp. Workers comp is kind of a, it's not necessarily lucrative, but it's certainly necessary if you're interested in the job.

(: 01:17:51

You do really important work and we've worked with you on a few different cases in our case specific classes and it's really important. Both of your clients, Bruce and Fred, are so lucky to have you both.

Absolutely. Yeah. And brings me back to all of our listeners. If you like what we're cooking up here in the cross lab, give us a good review. Give us a five star review or just follow us. Tell your colleagues about us. There's so much important information that we're bringing out here, different looks that you can use in your practice. So don't Bogart it, share it, man.

Thank you again to our guests for taking part and that is the end of today's experiment. We hope you take the best of it to court with you.

See you all next time on CrossLab.

Please like and subscribe to CrossLab wherever you get your podcasts or webcasts. If you really liked this podcast, please write a review. If you didn't, this podcast has been Paul Hollywood's Baker's Podcast. Thank you for listening to CrossLab, a trial house consulting production powered by LawPods. To get free resources for your next trial, go to houseimprov.com, H-A-U-S improv.com. This program is written and produced

(: 01:19:09

by Steve Homan and Olivia Espinosa and edited by Mark Crespo.

The discussions and content presented in this podcast are for educational and informational purposes only. They are not a substitute for professional legal advice, guidance or representation. Participation in this podcast, including cross examinations and feedback, takes place in a simulated training environment with fictional witnesses and scenarios. Any resemblance to real persons, cases or events is purely coincidental. The views expressed by the hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of

any organization or entities they may be affiliated with. House Team Productions and Law Pods are not responsible for the accuracy, outcomes, or application of any content or strategies discussed during the podcast. If you have any specific legal questions or concerns, we encourage you to consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.