Toxicologist and expert witness for the state on contaminated evidence
In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by plaintiff’s attorney Mark Choate and criminal defense/DUI attorneys Chuck Rathburn and Bruce Ringstrom.
Watch them cross-examine Olivia, who portrays a toxicologist and expert witness on behalf of the state. They’ll challenge the expert’s opinion on the validity of the BAC and blood draw procedures.
What’s covered in this episode:
- How crossing an expert witness can change your word selection
- The hidden role gender can play in your cross-examination
- An easy demonstrative to illustrate percentage points for your jury
- Using the expert to expose mishandlings in the case and create reasonable doubt
- What taking a moment to pause can do to a witness
- The trap you can fall into when you know their case well—and how to fix it
Time Stamps
00:00 What’s Cross Lab?
04:05 How an expert witness can change your approach to word selection
12:06 Mock Case Overview: State of Washington vs. Oscar Phillips
13:28 Chuck Rathburn’s Cross: Painting a clear picture of contamination
27:05 Approaching gender with an expert?
33:03 Simple demonstratives to illustrate the difference a few percentage points can make in BAC levels
35:17 Mark Choate’s Cross: Determining the level of intoxication
45:51 Leveraging the expert to expose other mishandlings in the case and create reasonable doubt
53:06 Bruce Ringstrom’s Cross: Exposing the expert’s lack of hands-on involvement
1:06:46 The impact your reset has on a witness
1:10:14 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like this
1:12:37 The trap of knowing too much—and how to fix it
To get free resources for your next trial go to HausImprov.com
Transcript
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.
We're not just trial consultants-
(:Through live witness sparring, we'll test constructive cross techniques, share fresh insights, and explore new strategies.
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. This show is brought to you by Trial House Consulting and powered by Lopods. Welcome to CrossLab. I'm Steve Homan.
and I'm Olivia Espinosa.
We are completely straightforward about this every episode. This is a law podcast that's not about the law at all.
(:No, we are not lawyers, we are actors, and we do witness simulations. And so we're gonna focus on the storytelling, and we're gonna let attorneys know how they make us feel as a witness, and how they make their fact-finder feel. And we're gonna focus on what we call a yes and cross.
Well, you might know it as constructive cross, but what we've discovered in our time working with attorneys is that it's basically the same kind of tools that we use in the improv show or in a theatrical show that you use in constructive cross.
And so we've designed a test case and invited three talented trial lawyers to spar with us as we play their witnesses to inspire you on your next depo or trial. And other than what the trial lawyers have already prepared for their cross, none of these simulations are scripted. So this is totally unpredictable and as realistic as possible.
Well, let's get to it. Let's introduce our guest trial lawyers for today.
(:Hi everybody. So I'm going to start with Chuck. Chuck Rathbun is here. He is a criminal defense attorney in the state of Indiana. Chuck practices statewide and focuses his practice on DUI and other driving offenses. Welcome Chuck.
Thank you, you forgot that I'm a mammal.
You are a mammal and that is one of the reasons why you are here today. So I appreciate you. Chuck, also have joining us here is Mark. Mark works with his son, John Choate, also on a previous podcast, if you're listening. They try contingency fee cases from the far north of Alaska all the way to San Diego, California, and as far west as the Hawaiian islands and as far east as a federal court in Colorado with a bar number in Roman numerals.
Mark has been doing this work for almost 45 years and intends to continue until he cannot anymore. Hi, Mark. Welcome. Good. Thank you. And last but not least, we have Bruce Ringstrom. Bruce is the founding partner at Ringstrom Decray, a criminal defense and civil rights firm based in Moorhead, Bruce is certified as a criminal law specialist by Minnesota State Bar Association. Welcome, Bruce.
Hi, how are you? Good to see
(:Thank very much, Olivia. I'm happy to be here.
We're so happy to have you.
just want to welcome everybody again. And I do want to point out to our audience and all three of you actually, because we just discovered that y'all haven't met each other before. And we just assumed you'd had because we've worked with you a bunch. And that's, that's first and foremost, we do want to point that out. And you'll notice that we have two criminal defense attorneys are specialized in criminal defense. And we have one plaintiff guy here. And that's actually on
purpose. We are going to focusing on a criminal case that will describe for you in just a second. It's a made up case, but we like to get an outside perspective. And so whenever we can, we're going to bring somebody outside of the specialty of the case or whatever that type of case is. It brings somebody with a different specialty or different focus in their practice just to get a different point of view at someone that doesn't have any expectations.
and just is kind of figuring out. Sometimes we stumble upon some really cool discoveries. So hopefully we'll have some of those today.
(:Yes. And I want to have just a quick discussion before we jump into today's case and just talk about sort of where your process comes when it comes to specifically word selection on your cross examinations. Bruce, what would you say is the way that you collect sort of how you're going to go about it when it comes to word selection?
Well, it does depend on the kind of witness in this. In this instance, we're going to be cross-examining an expert witness. And because they're a toxicologist, because they're a scientist, the words have to be somewhat more technical. You do need to be able to break it down for the jury or the fact finder. And so you also don't want to get into, in my experience, a battle with a true expert where you actually are.
are putting yourself in a situation where you're meant to look silly. So for a witness like this, it's a little bit more sophisticated than a lay witness or maybe a professional government witness like a police officer, but not so sophisticated that I get outflanked by the expert themselves.
Mm-hmm. And Mark, what would you say your process is when it comes to that?
In civil work, we deal a lot with experts. mean, most of major cases always involve lots of experts. And so I have sort of, I look at any expert deposition at the expert and is being falling into one of three categories. The first is an expert who really isn't qualified to testify that they they're called on to talk about things that they don't know about.
(:And those are fairly easy to take on over their knowledge and lack of expertise. The second is the expert who just is becoming a defense lawyer, where they're helping the other side. And so they're kind of going over their skis and reaching. And those are ones where, you know, for me, we'll look at showing how they simply are not objective, that they are just another defense lawyer in the courtroom. We see that a lot in
up here with medical malpractice cases. And then third is the expert who knows their stuff and they're staying within the scope of what they know and you're never going to beat them on their knowledge. And then you just go to bias and you just talk about how much they get paid and how much time they pay that they spend on the case. And that's about all you can do with that sort of expert. you charge a thousand dollars an hour and you charge twenty five thousand dollars and
And of course, if I had paid you $25,000, you'd give me a different opinion, wouldn't you? no. Doesn't matter at that point, right? But that's how I approach them. So I look at these things as generally someone's could fit in one of those categories.
And check, this is your wheelhouse. So how do you approach these cases and expert in this case?
Well, I actually like what both Bruce and Mark said, and I kind of do a combination of all of that. The experts that I'm dealing with on CROSS are the state experts, and they seem to want to embellish the state case. And I like that because I see the same experts over and over again that work for the state lab. So it's not like
(:know, Mark might see a different expert because he's dealing with different defense attorneys. And so they've got their witness that they want to come in so that he doesn't have a familiarity with them. But they know that I know the subject. They know that I know the terminology. They know that I know the right way and the wrong way to do these things. And so they are a little more guarded when I ask questions and they know not to embellish their testimony.
because I can make them look foolish. And so the last thing they want is to look foolish. And the last thing I want is for them to get into a fight with me, because I don't think you ever want to fight as a defense attorney with the state witness unless you get them to just at some point, like you see on TV or movies sometime where they say, OK, yeah, I made it all up. You're never going to get that in a courtroom. I've never seen it anywhere but on motion pictures or whatnot. So when I'm
preparing my cross, I'm using the language that is familiar with them and I'm using it in a way that they know that I know what I'm talking about and they can't play games with me. They did that with me early in my career, but as I've learned more, it's not happening. In fact, I've had a couple of prosecutors file motions to say that I can't say I'm an expert. And I told them, said, Judge, you're the only one that can tell if I'm an expert.
I'm not testifying, so I don't know where that even comes from. But it scares them, the knowledge that I have, and they don't know how to deal with it.
Chuck, are you mostly doing bench trials or is it jury trials?
(:I don't do bench trials. Almost 99 % of the judges are former prosecutors. 99 % of those judges who are former prosecutors are going to try to help the state prove their case because you don't get reelected having the appearance of being lenient or soft on DUI. And so I would rather have six or 12 people from the community listening to the facts and trying the case that way. I just,
There just hasn't been a time where I've been comfortable saying, I'll let a judge decide. Even the defense attorneys who go to the bench, they like to bend over backwards to show that they are now not on the defense side, that they're pro-government, pro-law enforcement, all that BS.
How do you go about, you know, since we were talking about word choice and with your expertise, do you ever worry or did you have to figure out how to thread that needle so you're not talking over the heads of your jury members and you could still make it really accessible? What was that process like or how do you deal with that?
I'm still learning because the last couple of trials I've had where I've lost, the jury comes up and talks to me and they're talking all about this reasonable doubt. You know, well, this, you know, didn't really happen. This didn't really happen. And I'm like sitting there trying not to scream at them, but that's reasonable doubt. That's why you should have voted not guilty. And, and I have, I have determined that, perhaps I am talking over their heads a little bit. And so I,
where my brain is right now is I need to talk to them both from the scientific standpoint, but also break it down for them so that they can get where I'm coming from. when I get, I think that's more closing argument than cross-examination. And I think that the way, maybe we can see some of that in my examples here tonight or today or whenever this thing airs as to,
(:this is why I'm asking these questions this way. Because if I can get the state agreeing with what I'm saying, then I can then break it down to the jury what that means when they're agreeing with me. So I think that's more argument than perhaps the cross technique. Because if you ask them a question that a layman understands, then they're going to say, I got you. And I'm going to throw out this special terminology. And then all of a sudden, it looks like you don't really know what you're talking about. So
If I can keep the conversation with the witness at a level that the witness doesn't mess with me, then I think I can interpret that for the jury.
Great, well, thank you all for sharing that. I feel great already just starting out that way. That was really fun to listen to all your different approaches and see how they kind of match or they meld together. But we have a mock case to look at today and Olivia playing our witness today. So let's learn a little bit more about our mock case.
This is the case of the state of Washington versus Oscar Phillips. Oscar Phillips, a 36-year-old medical device salesman, was arrested for a DUI after being pulled over for speeding in Spokane, Washington. Officer Chet Bowers noted signs of impairment, and Mr. Phillips admitted to consuming a couple of beers several hours prior. A blood test revealed a BAC of 0.14, above the legal limit of 0.08.
The defense challenges the validity of the test, citing issues with the blood draw procedure, including improper cleaning of the site and incorrect handling of the sample. The state's expert witness, Dr. Charlotte Ebers, will defend accuracy of the BAC result despite these procedural errors.
(:I'm, I'm going to pretty much stick with the, the blood draw in that kind of thing. I'm not going to really go into detail about gas chromatography or the storage or assessing or any of that stuff. I'm going to basically stick primarily with just the, the blood collection. And, by doing that, that'll keep me within 10 minutes. And then, you know,
certainly what we're going to do here would not be my total cross-examination of this witness.
All right, Chuck, the witness is yours.
Dr. Ebers, it's fair to say that you're a woman of science, is it not?
I would say so, yes.
(:And you would agree that science is not based upon conjecture?
Correct. And you would agree that science is not based on bias? Correct. And you would agree that science is based upon repeatability?
episode.
And your undergrad degree is in biology and chemistry. And then you have a master's degree also in biology and chemistry. you got your PhD in pharmacology and toxicology. And you've had training on gas chromatography. And you've had training on blood collection practices. You're not a phlebotomist every day. You don't draw blood on a regular basis or anything like that.
It is yes.
(:I do.
(:Yes, I did.
(:Yes, I have.
(:Myself, no. No, I do not do that anymore. I do not work in the lab anymore. I work primarily in education at this point.
OK. And so are you familiar with the term validation?
Yes.
And validation is the action of checking or proving the validity or accuracy of something. Is that a good definition? Let me ask that question again. I'm sorry. I said it really bad and I apologize. So a good definition for validation would be the action of checking or proving the validity or accuracy of something. Would you agree with that definition? Okay. In blood testing for alcohol concentration,
I would.
(:There are various processes for blood collection to blood testing that have to be validated.
Yes, that is correct.
We have to know that what we're doing will work every time we do it.
Yes.
By validated, it means the results are accurate.
(:That is correct. And by validated it means the results are correct. Yes. And another term for validation would be that the results can be trusted.
I would say that.
And we can believe that the results are reliable.
Correct.
And one of those processes for validation is the equipment needed for collecting blood.
(:That's true.
And one of those processes is the transportation of those samples once they're collected. And then how those samples are put into what they call a sessioning for testing. And another process would be running them through a gas chromatograph to test that.
Correct.
(:Yes.
(:Yes.
If the proper procedures for collecting blood are not followed, those results would be compromised.
They can be, yes. I guess it depends on which part.
And by compromise it means the results could be inaccurate.
It can be again. It depends on which part of the process you're talking about.
(:But they could be inaccurate.
It could happen, yes.
And by being inaccurate, that also means that they could be wrong.
(:Yes, I suppose so.
It means the results couldn't be trusted.
(:And means that the results are- I'm sorry ma'am, I didn't hear what you said.
I think you're speaking generally, but in specifics it just depends again.
Sure, but if they're contaminated, those results would be unreliable.
Yes, correct.
Okay. Are you familiar with the term contaminated?
(:Yes,
Would you agree that contamination means the action or state of making or being made impure by polluting or poisoning a sample? That that would be a contamination definition? And items can be contaminated in many ways, isn't that correct?
Yes.
(:That is true.
It could be because you didn't keep the equipment sterile.
It could be yes.
It could be that you used the wrong method of preparing the site for collection.
Perhaps yes.
(:It could be that when one is testing for alcohol, using alcohol to clean the site could be a problem.
(:Can you repeat that question?
Yeah, sure. you clean the site for collecting blood, if you're testing for alcohol and you clean the site with alcohol, that could compromise the result. Would you agree?
No.
You don't think cleaning the site with alcohol would not compromise the sample?
Alcohol, alcohol dries very quickly. So if an alcohol swab was used and the proper amount of time was taken for that alcohol to dry, which in the video of this particular case, it looks like enough time passed for that alcohol to dry. So I disagree with you.
(:Well, you say it looks like the alcohol would have dried, but you don't know that.
No, it's the amount of time. dries relatively quick.
I understand, but time is relative. It's not the same for every time you swab an arm, it?
It certainly depends, but in this case, from what I can see, enough time has passed for the technician to go ahead and draw blood.
But you're marking the assumption that enough time has passed.
(:I mean, we weren't there, so you're making an assumption as well. I can go off of the video and what I saw.
Well, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm asking questions about it. You don't know how full of alcohol the swab was that she cleaned the arm with.
I do not, but I as.
And if you put more alcohol on it will take longer for it to dry would it not?
Sure, but it is so minute if that was to at all enter into any factor here. It is so minute it would not cause that blood alcohol content to rise so high.
(:Okay, so my new, when we're talking about a 0.12 % alcohol concentration, if, what is that in a decimal that's not a percentage?
I'm not sure I know what you're asking.
Well, 0.12 is the percent alcohol that's alleged in this case. You agree with that?
I have that it was .1. I have that, I do not have that particular number. I apologize.
Let's just for the sake of argument if it's a point one two. Okay. That means and that's a percentage with the percentage then you move the decimal two points to the left, correct?
(:So 0.12 % would actually be a 0.0012.
Yes.
So the first decimal is tenths, the second decimal is hundredths, the third decimal place is thousandths, and the fourth decimal point is 12 thousandths. So we've got 12, 10 thousandths of grams of alcohol that is being reported. So a little bit could make that number go up.
It could, but I think that the probability of that is so, it's not even an issue here.
Okay, so you said you were a phlebotomist and you have drawn blood.
(:Yes.
And you're aware that there's a process for drawing blood in an alcohol testing case.
That is correct.
And based upon what you saw, this person did not follow those proper procedures. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase the question. Based upon the video that you saw, the person drawing the blood did not follow proper procedures.
I disagree.
(:Well, was she wearing gloves?
She was not.
So by not wearing gloves, she was contaminating it with her physical hands.
The gloves are a precaution for the phlebotomist, not for the patient or the test itself.
precaution for the phlebotomist so that they don't stick themselves and get blood into them. But you would agree that your hands will contaminate the site.
(:If alcohol was being used, that means alcohol was also potentially used to wipe the phlebotomist's hands, in which case it could have basically cleaned her hands as well.
but she touched the site after she did the alcohol.
She did, and that would not contaminate the blood itself. The blood is taken from inside of a vein, not from the surface of the skin.
So it's your opinion that touching her bare hands onto the site where the blood collection is would not compromise the test.
in my opinion,
(:Okay, you have no documentation that would support that.
This is my years of experience and the work that I have done in my entire career.
I understand that's what your testimony is, but you have no book, no manual, no thesis, anything to say that it's okay to touch the site where you're going to collect blood with your bare hands.
As I just mentioned, gloves are a precaution for the phlebotomist. And even in general, phlebotomy is aseptic. It is not sterile. We keep it as clean as possible, and it is as clean as we can keep it.
Where am I at on time?
(:And that's time. Okay. And that's time. Go ahead and bring back Mark and Bruce. And first of all, how did that feel to you, Chuck? How did you feel?
I would have had documentation with me to blow her out of the water with touching with her bare hands. I didn't have that here. There's just nobody that would say that that's appropriate. I felt like, again, I had about four more pages to go and I thought I was about three minutes in and didn't realize it was 10. So, I, I felt like at one point I got a little combative with her.
And I don't know how that would play because it could come across with me being a bully. But because I know Olivia and she knows I'm not a bully, I felt I could go a little bit further. But I think that that was something that potentially could have been an issue.
Yeah, for from what I saw, I mean, you absolutely know this material. You were like a technician just plot, you know, plotting through this the material. First of all, I mean, we're going back to since we talk about constructive cross or you were just right on with one fact at a time leading questions only and just continually plotting forward. And like you said, if you had more time, we could have got even better stuff.
the things that I did see and we're talking about that combative part, know, beyond the combative part, if you let her talk, I mean, you did talk over her. So I don't know if you might've gotten like, Hey, you got to let the witness talk or how that would play in your courtroom. Or if the jury would think that you're trying to bully her. But beyond that, she could have offered you gifts that you could loop and use on her too. you know, there's that, that's that side of it as well that
(:That's not necessarily a bad thing for her to for her to volunteer more. It could be it could be a great opportunity. And then the other you know, we were talking about the word choice. I loved how you I loved how you defined everything, anything that was technical in nature. You had it defined. You got her to agree to it. I just want to throw it out. Like what do you think about if you did like the
went one bit further for the jury and did like definition for dummies. I don't know if that would bridge that gap that we were talking about as far as going from the technical to the layman's ear, but you're so just absolutely in control the whole time. But I want to bring it over to Olivia. Olivia, how did that feel to you?
Holy moly, for the first like three quarters of it, I had nowhere to go. I was just saying, yes, yes, yes, the entire time. So the way that you structured your questions, I didn't feel like I could even run on you in any sort of way whatsoever. I felt like I was super duper in control and I was like trying to find points and it didn't happen. I don't know exactly when I might've started negating things. I think I know I said no on one of your questions, but.
I, my only thing was like, it start, I'm wondering how, and I, I'm the only female on the panel, but I, I, as soon as I heard you're a woman of science, somehow I felt like my being a female is going to play into this. And then it didn't happen until much, much later where I started, you asked me about defining, you know what validation means. And so I started to almost feel.
There was a couple of definitions you asked if I knew what words meant. And so I started to feel, I don't know, like I was being tested, maybe because I was a female. I was just playing, I felt that even in potentially in some tone. So I know you, Chuck, and I know that that's not what you intended, but I'm interested in terms of just, you know, knowing that there was a female on the stand and what that's like. you, are most of...
(:Are any of your experts female? What is the typical toxicologist or expert that you come against?
For the last five to seven years, every witness from the state is female. so that's not unusual for me. I did not know how to ask that first question without putting your gender in. Because I think you're a person of science. If it had been Steve, I would have started out, you're a man of science. it wasn't that I was, as a woman, you don't have...
the mental capacity to do this job. was just, you're a woman, you know? And so maybe that is something I need to think about in the future, but I just, it didn't matter to me whether it was you or Steve, I was gonna ask the same damn question. And so it wasn't, but by the same token, I'm a man I've never been discriminated on. I've never been treated as, you know, not being capable because of my gender.
Bye.
(:And perhaps people in the jury would not have liked that. And they would have thought, again, when we kind of got a little combative, it's like, man, I don't want to be that bully. And I've got to call you out for where I think you're making shit up. But by the same token, I have to do it in a respectful manner. Unless you call me an asshole or something like that, where I think can come after you.
Cause there's been a couple of times where I've had police officers who I know were going to get combated with me and be real jerks. And so in voir dire, I asked the jury, Hey, if the, if the officer, treats me inappropriately, do I have the right to respond? And I'll get them to say, yeah, absolutely. You know, we treat people with respect. And, and so once there was this one case I was doing where the cop really kind of started treating me like a Dick. And I looked over at the jury and three of them nodded their heads, like get it.
You know, and so that's, don't know if that helps with what you were asking, but it's certainly what my mindset is.
Yeah. Yeah, I think it just started to sort of add up for me a little bit. But I know wholeheartedly that that's not where you're coming from. But that's how it started to feel. And it might be something interesting to kind of take a look at. Bruce, what did you find to be effective? What worked for you? What stood out?
Well, as Chuck said, he's an expert in the subject matter. I'm only an expert in one subject, and I enjoy cross-examining those experts as much as Chuck ostensibly enjoys cross-examining toxicologists from the state. It's a lot of fun when you practically know as much as the expert. You know, it was the block-by-block cross that frankly leaves very little wiggle room for the witness.
(:And that can be really powerful. I mean, I was a little envious because it's not a body of knowledge that I use. don't try DUIs much anymore. But I liked the shape of it. I had the same question about whether there was any gender embedded in the questions.
When I cross-examine toxicologists or other forensic scientists, I put scientists in quote from the state, the vast majority of them are female and I scrupulously avoid making any reference to their gender. I think, it's almost like I'm saying that anyone is capable of being a scientist when I pretend like it doesn't exist, it doesn't matter. But yeah, it was a powerful cross and it sort of eliminated one of the interesting chapters I was gonna work on here. So I'll have to get creative.
You can still do that chapter.
Sure, I'll do a little bit of that. That's a good idea.
Mark, what stood out to you? What was effective? What did you notice?
(:I'm a really fast cross examiner in the sense that I just don't, I don't think juries have a lot of attention span and I do lots of depositions. Like I think I 100 to 130 a year, but they last an hour and I use them at trial. We can use any deposition at trial here. So every depo I do is almost all by zoom, all videoed. I think that
I would have redone the beginning to simply say you're a scientist. Because that doesn't have to be woman or man. You're a scientist. And if you're a scientist, you believe in the scientific method. You believe that things have to be done in a certain reproducible way so that you can rely upon results because results are important. And I would have shortened that, I think, just because I don't think
it takes much more than that to get the jury to go, yeah, we get that. The part that I liked the most was breaking down the milliliters to this little tiny, tiny bit, know, point 12 and whatever, and that the slightest change, or just a small, small change makes a big difference in the outcome. That for me, visually, you
That stuck with me and I would think, how could you show that visually, right? If we're talking about a water, not a water glass, I'm thinking, I've got a ping pong balls that are empty and you know what? The difference, what we're talking about is in this 10,000 or 100,000 or whatever, there's 12 black ones here and we pull two out and it's a different result.
I just, think capturing a way to do that visually, but that's what I like the most is the rest of it. Um, I don't know if, uh, it, particularly, it, you know, you didn't go have anywhere to go, but you were admitting things that I think most people would understand and appreciate. So I would just spit it out.
(:Great. Well, we are going to take our first break, actually our only break, and we'll be right back. But what a start. I'm very excited to see the other two crosses.
(:Since we're taking a break, let's quickly talk about our partners at LawPods. A lot of people think that that's the company that just produces the podcast for TLU, our trial lawyer nation, but actually what they mostly do is work with lawyers just like you to reach non-lawyers, AKA potential clients.
Yeah, podcasts let your audience get to know and trust you. And Robert Ingalls and his team make podcasting easy.
With over 100 million people expected to listen to podcasts this year, there's never been a more effective way to market your practice.
To get more information, visit lawpods.com. That's L-A-W P-O-D-S dot com. Tell them we sent you.
There's no one way to cross a witness. so we're going to get your version of it right now, Mark. But before we do that, do you have any questions or do you want to set it up in any way before you start crossing our Dr. Ebers or Eva? Great. So let's go ahead and the witness is yours, Mark.
(:Nope. Okay, ready to go.
(:Good afternoon, Dr. Ebers. My understanding is you're a toxicologist?
Good afternoon.
(:I am. I'm a forensic toxicologist.
Okay. And you're providing testimony here on behalf of the state.
That's correct.
And did you review the police report in this case?
I did.
(:Now, as you understand that my client has been charged with driving while intoxicated, correct? And you understand that there are three basic ways that you can get evidence about whether someone's intoxicated. First, you can look at their driving. And if the driving's impaired, they demonstrate impaired driving, that would show
Yes.
(:That's correct.
Yes.
(:that could indicate the person has too much alcohol on board, right?
Yes, and per the police report that I reviewed, that is what happened here.
And the police report says the individual is driving five miles over the hour.
That's correct. Over the speed limit, yes.
Over the speed limit. Right. So are you saying that driving five miles faster speed limit would indicate that someone might be intoxicated?
(:Well, it certainly depends on the conditions. I am not a police officer, so I can't attest to why any other reasons that he was being pulled over, but certainly thankful that he was.
for driving five miles over the speed limit.
for being intoxicated while driving.
Okay, well let's just say that you would agree with me that driving five miles over this female would not be a sign of intoxication, it?
Again, I'm not a police officer. I don't know the rules of the road in that way.
(:OK, the second way that we could tell if someone was impaired would be by what's called a field sobriety testing. OK, and that's where the officer actually has the person get out of the vehicle. They have them walk a line, right? Yeah, yes. They may have them recite the alphabet forward and backwards. They may do some testing where they bring the hands to the nose, that sort of thing, right? None of that was done here, was it?
Yes.
(:They could, yes.
(:Correct.
Not that I am aware of, not that I read in the police report.
So the second area where we might be able to tell whether my client was actually impaired, that testing wasn't even done, right?
The second one that you're referring to as the field test. No, was not. Not that I'm aware.
So if the driving doesn't demonstrate impairment and there's no field testing, then we're sort of dependent upon the drawing of blood alcohol and any information we could have about how much alcohol the person, my client would have had in his system, right?
(:Yes, so at this point it could be a breathalyzer test or the blood test.
And what information did you have as to how much alcohol my client had consumed, Oscar Phillips, before being stopped by the police and ultimately given the blood test?
I reviewed that there was a receipt from I believe it was Buffalo Wild Wings of four Miller lights.
So we have four milliliter lights and how much did Mr. Phillips weigh?
I will have to double check my notes. I don't have that right off hand here.
(:Well, let me just say, do you recall, let me refresh recollection. report says 185 pounds. Do you have any reason to disagree with that?
No, not at all.
So he drank four Miller lights, he weighed 185 pounds, and he said that he had been drinking about three hours when he consumed those four Miller lights, correct? Okay. So he's been drinking about three hours. He then goes and drives, he stopped. He's then taken to the place, to the hospital where he could have his blood drawn, right? You agree that was about another hour between the time?
Yes.
(:that he was first stopped in the time he finally had his blood test taken.
In terms of the actual time, no, I'm not aware of how long it took.
Well, we know that he had been drinking over three hours and there was some time between the time that he was initially stopped, the time his blood alcohol was taken,
Yes, that's correct.
Okay, so let's say three and a half, four hours.
(:Sure
(:If you calculate, and alcohol does have, it requires a certain amount of alcohol in your system to show up in the blood test, correct? Okay. Now, when I look at the charts, it shows that someone who weighs 185 pounds, male, who's had four drinks, and it's four hours from the time they start drinking until they're tested, they would show a 0.05 % blood alcohol.
Yes.
(:I have not, I have not done, I would need a second to, do that because the, the, problem is, is, is that although he has a receipt with four beers, he certainly did not have to have only four beers. If he was there with friends, his friends could have given him beers and he could have drank far more than that to begin with.
But you're just speculating, right? You don't have any information that...
compared to basically what we see as his blood alcohol content, which is relatively high, it is very possible that he had more than four.
Or it's also possible that the blood alcohol testing was inaccurate, right?
I would not say that, no. I also know that he is a casual drinker and alcohol does take longer to metabolize at slower rates. And so the blood alcohol content of 0.14 aligns with that type of drinker.
(:Well, for him to have a 0.14, having drunk, let's say, three hours before the time he was stopped by the police, or roughly that time period, 30 or 40 minutes to get the blood test taken, he would have had to have twice as much alcohol. He'd had to have eight drinks.
sure.
And to have eight drinks, he would have been markedly impaired, right?
enough for a police officer to pull him over, which is what happened in this case.
Well, what is there about driving five miles over the speed limit that would indicate that someone's markedly impaired?
(:Again, I wasn't there. I'm not a police officer, so he could have very well been swerving. There's other indications.
But that's not in the report, is it?
No.
doesn't say he was swerving, doesn't say he was driving erratically. It doesn't indicate that there's any good reason for stopping him other than driving five miles over the speed limit, correct?
I would disagree. I'm very glad as a driver on the road, as someone who has a child who just started to drive, I'm glad that a drunk driver was taken off of the road.
(:Well, you're saying he's drunk, but there's in fact nothing in his driving that showed he was impaired,
His blood alcohol content shows that he was impaired.
Now the blood alcohol content would reflect that he somehow was, even though he says he drank three or four beers, and that's what's reflected in the receipt, that that's inaccurate, right?
I'm sorry. He more alcohol than that. drank twice as many beers as you said. It's as he said.
It's possible and as I mentioned, because he's a casual drinker, it does take longer for alcohol to metabolize.
(:What do you mean by casual drink?
someone who is an alcoholic who drinks alcohol regularly, it takes a quicker amount of time for their body to metabolize alcohol because their body is essentially used to it.
So you're saying this man who admitted that he had four beers, showed a receipt for it, was driving five miles over the speed limit, had no field sobrieting testing, because of your one blood test, you're saying this man is an alcoholic?
No, I'm saying he's a casual drinker. I was comparing him to people who drink alcohol regularly as a casual drinker, which I'm stating that he potentially is. That's why the alcohol took a longer amount of time to metabolize in his body, in his system.
And what's the basis, your basis for saying that he's a casual drink?
(:Well, can he he could have had shots. He could have had beers. Yeah, I'm he could very well be an alcoholic.
So doctor, the basis that this man, on the basis of your blood test, even though there's no other evidence of him being impaired or drinking more than four beers, your conclusion is that he is most likely an alcoholic.
No, I didn't say that, sir. I did not say that. You said that. I said he was a casual drinker, in which case it takes longer for alcohol to metabolize in his system.
And doctor, your blood testing that you're relying upon, that assumes that it's done in a scientific way,
Check.
(:it's gonna get good. That was gonna get good.
Well, that's it. I didn't want to go to that part, but she was fighting with me enough. That's where I was going to have to go to now.
That was that was fun to watch very entertaining. How did that feel to you mark?
I don't think the jury would like that at all. You know, I mean, you're saying someone's an alcoholic for driving five miles over the speed limit and having four beers. I'm going, hey, that's me. I don't drink. I don't drive with four beers, but I don't think that makes you an alcoholic. Or a casual drink or casual.
No, definitely not.
(:casual.
I what I liked is that you took from what we saw on the police report, and the evidence that was on there, you brought it down to the importance of the blood test. And so I liked how you did that you that we kind of eliminated where what we're really relying on was blood test. That's why I thought you're gonna go into the blood test lot. But then you you talked about you know, you we stayed on
the the the street or what was happening on the street a bit. But anyways, I really liked how you you kind of funneled it in to the reliance of her. I do say like, I don't know how much she could speak on what was happening on the street or what other evidence there was. Because it's kind of outside of her realm. But but challenging her on it was
was definitely interesting to see, you know, how she would respond to that. The important part was that you were bringing those questions up and putting those into the mind of your fact binders. So yeah, that's what I was seeing. What did you think, Olivia? No, go ahead, Mark.
So.
(:No, just first of all, I think I got pulled kind of into the fight where I didn't need to go there back with her because she was being kind of obstreperous. But the as I see it, that's right. Is that, you know, if you don't have bad driving, which is surprising, and you don't have a field sobriety test, which is surprising, and you're only relying on the the blood alcohol that gives you, you know, some some running room, you know, with most juries in the sense that they would go well.
Gee, this person wasn't demonstrating anything that would indicate they're impaired other than, well, you must be impaired. We just did a trial with a guy who was brought into the ER with a 0.31. And there are people that can walk and talk with 0.3s. I don't know. that was my thought is, normally, I would just have gone after the blood testing.
I thought the other places were so ripe for attack in the sense that, you know, so you drive five miles over the speed limit, that must mean you're impaired. I'm sure I go there, you know.
I could tell that you had your listener in mind during the whole thing of like, I being the guide? Am I being the teacher? Am I making sure that they're following along with the information that I'm trying to bring in, which I think is super duper helpful and necessary, especially when it comes to some of this toxicology stuff that they might not, know, that they could easily tune out of and not understand what it is. I think it's so like, that's what I can tell the most is that you have the listener in mind. I also was like,
the general to specific that you did at the very beginning to just get stuff out of the way was like so fast and quick is exactly what you were talking about with Chuck. And you just modeled it basically. And it was really, really great because it was just like, yep, that's good, that's good, that's good. And just kind of get into the meat of it. So really very efficient, I thought for sure.
(:Check what you think.
Man, I loved it. some of the things you did, I hadn't really thought about doing. And as you were doing them, was like shouting questions to myself, ask her this, ask her this. Because when you said, you know, the four beers is going to get them to a 0.14, you know, that, that was a perfect time to get into Widmark and talk about, well,
How does alcohol affect the body? You know, these are the six factors that go into it. You know what they drink, how much they drink, the time over which they drank it, go through all those things. And she wouldn't, she said, well, he could have had some shots and he could have had this. And then I'm thinking speculation. Your job is not to speculate. The only way that can happen is by your speculation based upon the facts we know the facts that are in evidence. That's impossible. And she wasn't going to give it to you.
And I think at that point, man, you've got her. You've got her in close. You know, she's making shit up to support the conviction. Is she really neutral and detached? No, she's a state. She's trying to convict. I thought you did great. I mean, I wrote down some notes here that I'm going to start putting in my trial notebook to say, you know, I just like the way you did that. You know, when you talked about the speed, I hadn't even thought about that. But there's like in the standardized field sobriety manuals, speeding is not an indicia of impairment.
driving under the speed limit is the indicia, you know, and, so you got that. mean, man, you just, I, I really liked it. I can see why you're successful with what you do.
(:Bruce what were your thoughts?
Well, I enjoyed it too. One of the things that was fascinating to me was how you got this toxicologist to effectively adopt content from other witnesses. know, often I will, if I've tried a criminal case where there is a toxicologist, it can be difficult to get them to talk about other mistakes that other witnesses made. You sort of have to say, assuming that this is true, you know, the officer,
made a mistake as it related to preparing the person for the blood draw or something like that, because they may not know. But in this instance, we did have a witness who was prepared to adopt some of that. And so I thought you did a really good job with that. And the other thing, certainly as a plaintiffs lawyer, your job is to build cases. Chuck's and my job is to tear them down and raise reasonable doubt.
to recognize that these collateral concerns, the speed of the vehicle and the number of beers, those are ways that a jury may find that there's doubt based on reason to convict. And you're sort of piling that on top of the scientific failure. So I did enjoy it.
That's really an interesting insight. thinking about that as far as, you know, this obvious that in the storytelling or the way that you're trying to build your case where you're trying to, you know, take apart the case of the state or, you know, the prosecutor's case, you know, where a plaintiff's lawyer is trying to build that up and all of the things that led to whatever the injury was. And it's just a fascinating
(:way of thinking about it. I mean, it's obvious, but it's so fun to see that when we take, take this approach where you get to see somebody that does plaintiff's case and take that different approach. So we're moving on to Bruce. You are going to take on Dr. Evers. Do you have anything that you want to set up before we have you cross?
I don't think so. I'm going try and use the fact that there's been a direct examination to assume some facts that aren't necessarily seen in this cross. That is to say, the jury has seen her testify to a number of things, and presumably the prosecutor has talked about some of these other facts. So I'm going to try and use evidence that in this theoretical jury trial is already in front of the jury.
Sounds good. Well, Bruce, the witness is yours.
Thank you.
Good evening, Dr. Evers.
(:Good evening.
(:Dr. Evers, when you receive a sample, it simply comes to your lab. You don't retrieve it yourself, correct? And you have no control over the chain of custody of that sample until it gets into your possession. Is that a fair statement? So, not that anyone's claiming it here, but if the sample was adulterated before it got to you,
Correct.
(:Yes, that's fair.
(:That is something that you would have no control over, correct?
Correct. And I want to be clear that I was not conducting the labs on this in particular case.
Very good. So you're simply testifying as to the work that somebody else did, correct? All right.
Yes.
(:And in light of that, actually don't, you don't in fact know what the chain of custody is with this sample because you weren't even the one who conducted the analysis of this sample, correct?
I know the best practices of that chain and what is typical.
Okay, so you would know the right way to maintain chain of custody for this sample and if it had come to you, you would be able to testify to whether those were complied with, correct?
Sure, I mean more specifically, yes, absolutely.
Alright.
(:So you actually don't know the name of the phlebotomist who drew this sample?
The name, no, I do not.
Okay. And you don't know when the sample was transferred to the police department?
No, do not, again, best practices in this particular case.
Right. And you don't know when the sample was transferred to the lab that did the analysis.
(:I know that it was, again, best practices that it's not without, know, out of the normal range of time.
Okay, you know what the best practices are. We've established that. You don't know based on any personal knowledge whether best practices were followed in this case.
In regards to after it was taken from, you know, I saw the same video that you did. after that, no, I do not.
All right.
Specifically, you don't know whether this sample was refrigerated after it was drawn.
(:I do not.
You do know, based on the information that you had reviewed, that the tube within which the sample was placed did not have a preservative in it.
Now that's incorrect.
(:It is incorrect that you don't know or it's incorrect about whether there was a preservative.
It is a gray tube and it is best practices that gray tubes have what the preservatives that are needed.
Okay. Now, Dr. Evers, I recognize that you were not the witness who testified as the foundation of this sample, but if the evidence custodian testified under oath before your testimony that the blood was collected in a gray topped tube, which visually resembled the proper collection tube, but lacked the necessary preservatives for ethanol testing, you would have no reason to doubt that testimony. Is that correct?
If it's a gray tube, that's all it needs to be to have the ingredients in there that we need for this particular test.
.
(:Once again, if the witness said it lacked the necessary preservatives, given that you had no direct contact with the test, you would have no way to contradict that statement. Is that correct? All right.
(:You did testify briefly on your direct examination about the definition of contamination. You understand that contamination of samples of any type can degrade the accuracy of the analysis.
I can, yes.
Okay.
And as you testified as to best practices when blood is drawn for purposes of evaluating blood alcohol content, that the antiseptic betadine, betadine is preferable to the use of alcohol for cleansing the draw site, correct?
It's preferable, but if it's not available, an alcohol swab is perfectly okay.
(:And the fact that it's preferable is not arbitrary. That is to say there is a scientific reason why it is preferable to use betadine over alcohol, correct?
It can be, but again, if that's all that you have on hand, then you just need to take the proper precautions and it would work just fine.
(:It is a fair statement that if alcohol were introduced into a blood sample, that that would affect the final blood alcohol content analysis of that sample.
Hypothetically speaking, yes, but I don't believe that's what happened in this case.
Sure. Well, I'm asking actually speaking, and I am deferring to your expertise as a PhD in toxicology, having reviewed many hundreds of studies. If alcohol is introduced into a blood sample and that blood sample is then analyzed subject to the proper protocols, that additional alcohol would affect the final blood alcohol content.
Yes, but that is not what happened in this case.
And let's be clear, and you can see to this on direct examination, you can't rule out the possibility that alcohol anywhere else was introduced into it, can you?
(:Can you ask that question again?
(:It would be beyond your knowledge in this case. It would be beyond your knowledge of how the world works to conclude that there is 0 % chance that alcohol was introduced into this blood sample somewhere along the line.
If it was, it would be so minuscule that it would not affect the overall result. In this case, the blood alcohol content was high above the legal limit and far beyond what any small amount of alcohol swab could do.
(:Dr. Ebers, you have testified as an expert in toxicology many times.
Sure, a few times yes.
And you are indeed a PhD in toxicology. And you wrote a doctoral dissertation concerning toxicology.
Yes.
(:I did, yes.
(:You stay current on the literature in the toxicology field. You study the treatises and compendiums of studies in the toxicology field.
I do.
(:I
You understand specifically in alcohol testing that there is a molecular difference between ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, and methanol.
That is correct.
You have evaluated the studies or read the studies that determine the differences in the way those types of alcohol are measured, correct? Because sometimes for reasons known only to them, people do ingest isopropyl alcohol or methanol from time to time, correct?
Yes.
(:It happens, yes.
Hit us up.
Thanks.
(:You try to ensure that you don't miss any studies or any reports concerning toxicology that would bear on your testimony or your professional work.
That is correct. is my life's work. enjoy reading everything that I can on the subject.
You have a working familiarity then with the premier treatise in the field, Garrett's Medical Legal Aspects of Alcohol, correct?
Yes.
simply because virtually every toxicologist who evaluates alcohol would have that treatise, correct?
(:Yes, that is true. It's on my bookshelf.
Indeed.
And you would acknowledge that and you've I mean, I'm sure you haven't memorized the book, but you've gone through every chapter and you've studied it to the extent necessary to understand its content.
I would say that yes.
Okay. And you would acknowledge that the studies that are reflected in that treatise show that isopropyl alcohol in low concentrations interferes with all assays of ethanol testing.
(:Yes.
End.
That's time. Sorry, sorry, Bruce. You were on a roll and you were right getting, I loved how you were building another set of chapters to get into another thing. And I'm so sorry that I have to stop you, but how did that feel to you?
I felt okay. You it's interesting when we do chain cross examinations like this, you learn from the first two attorneys. And so you get to sharpen some of your chapters. But of course, Olivia learns a little bit too, and she gets to of tighten up. So it becomes a bit of an arms race. I did take Chuck's invitation and try and work that chapter a little bit differently. I think you can see that my final chapter was that,
A minuscule portion of isopropyl alcohol can have an outsized effect on the sample rather than, you know, it's not, there's not ethanol in those pads that's isopropyl. And so we got where we needed to go. just, was a 10 minute cross.
(:That's that's right. And I could totally see that. I think everybody else saw that's exactly where you're going to go. If we gave you those extra next two questions. But I loved how you started out with all the things that she doesn't know. I love that. That was such a that was such a great way to start out the cross. And I'll say this the other things that I really enjoy this I love this when anybody does this. I love that you have the comfort level to take a moment.
really digest about what you're getting and where you want to go and the way that you reset. I love seeing you do that. And once again, I've already said it. I love that you went through all of this, you know, the chapters that you did. And then you set up a brand new set of foundations. I know you because you were you were like you said you were you were learning from your two predecessors. But I love that. It was like another you could just feel that. Okay, we
We established a lot of things. We're going to go into another subject and it felt separate, but in a good way, it felt like its own its own thing. We could follow it along. That was really good. Olivia. How did that feel to you?
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing starting with all the things that I don't know. my God. That was just like, it wasn't until like X amount of questions in where it was just like, holy shit, I don't know. What do I know? Right. It starts to make me question it. But I just thought that was super effective because you could combine what you did with what, you know, Mark did. You don't know what it takes to, you know, identify a drunk driver or whatever that means. Right. Like you could just flip it and kind of do that same thing of all the things that I don't know. So I thought it was very effective. And when
when you sort of do that reset, I don't know how it feels on you for the inside, but sometimes that reset feels a lot longer in our minds than it actually takes. But what you were doing to me was like, my God, what is he gonna come after me now with? What is he gearing up to do? That is how I felt on the inside, especially because we were getting to like, you know, the crux and kind of butting heads about it. And when you pulled out that book, I'm like, shit, here it comes. He's gonna hit me with the book. So.
(:I thought it was really effective. felt in super control and I thought it was really remarkable starting with everything that I didn't know. It didn't feel good as a witness.
Mark, what were your thoughts on the cross?
I thought it was really solid. mean, I would say it's a classic technique is to go in after an expert on all the things. Well, you're not a blank. You're not a blank. You don't do these things. You don't do that. Where I thought, and I can usually, I think on the op, when I look at things, how do I respond to that? I can handle that. But then he went into the absence of.
any connection with this, any connection really with this test. I mean, he didn't have, she didn't have any part of the process at the end of the day. She's really talking about just what the results were. And I thought that was powerful because that sort of removes any kind. mean, you you only as good as what you get. And since you don't have any control over this, any concerns regarding it. I think that was where
I got that aha lightning bolt thing in my head where I said, that is really excellent. The rest, mean, not that there's anything wrong with the rest of it, but that was very much what you see from skilled lawyers. But it was the taking away the fact that she had nothing. had no real hands on with any part of this that I thought was highly powerful and persuasive for a fact finder. think that as an expert, she sort of disappeared right there.
(:She didn't have anything to say then other than I get stuff. assume everybody else has done their job right. What I get is only as good as what I got, right? And how they got it to me. So I liked it. I liked it. that was the powerful part for me.
Chuck, wrapping up with you, what was your takeaways from Bruce's cross?
I love the repeated use of best practices. You know, you just, you, I don't, I don't know if it's technically looping or not, but you just kept bringing it back. Best practices would have been best practices would have been, I really liked that. Man, you just, I, you broke it down simplistically and I, and I liked that. I, know, you did your thing a little different than mine. I can see where I might pick up a few things from that.
I'm going to ask Steve for a copy of this so I can watch it more. But I just think that it's, you clearly were not going to let her have an air of authority after you started the first five minutes. I don't know. You don't know this. I don't know this. I don't know that. And all of a sudden, she's a little less the paragon of knowledge than when she sat down and was testifying for the stake.
Well, that's my question for you all. If you had to cross this witness or, you know, something like this witness tomorrow, what's something that you would take away from today and make sure to add in your chapters? Bruce.
(:One, I would actually spend more time reading this book so I could be more like Chuck. And two, I would use Mark's stronger ability to sort of get the witness to adopt what other people said. I thought that was very powerful. So yeah, certainly those two things.
Mark, how about you?
I think I would have, guess because I didn't anticipate the test, you're sort of saying someone driving five miles per hour over the speed limit, that's a sign of a drunk. You know, I would have probably spent more time on that one. I mean, it wasn't 15 or 25 or 50. was five. mean, you know, and the casual drinker thing, I think I should have dove. I would get more into that and go.
I've never heard of the term casual drinker in the field of toxicology, you know, or, or alcohol stuff, you know, I would have, I would have got those. And then I, again, I didn't know anything about gray bottles or tubes. And that I would spend, would learn more about because getting into that part of it, you know, the idea that you would be touching surfaces with your hands that you were then going to be
sticking a needle in. I can't imagine anybody doing, know, phlebotomist doing this work without gloves and swabbing and cleaning and making sure the environment was sterile. and so I would build, I would go on to that, but I just think the underlying facts are, really weak for this witness.
(:Yeah, Chuck, what are you going to take away?
Um, I really liked that you kept using the word best practices. Um, and, and how you, you did that. I think I've got to start doing a little bit more of that, laying the foundation as to what she really does know and doesn't know. I think I'm going to, I'm going to try to figure out how to incorporate that. And, and, I, you know, Mark, there were some of the things you did. And again, I got to watch this thing over again. I'm the guy who learns by repetition. And so I'll probably watch this 10 times over the next month and a half.
And it's just, you know, there's a, I talk too fast and I have to make a very concerted effort to slow my ass down in the courtroom because people don't always hear what I say. And both of you guys had a delivery pattern that I felt was more comfortable than what I'm doing. And maybe it's just, you you see something about yourself you don't like and you automatically adopt.
you know, somebody who does it the way you want to do it. But I just feel like, you know, that that style and Steve, we've we've talked about this for as long as you've known me. You know, I just I got to slow my ass down, slow my mouth down and get the words out right. I don't want to be like Deputy Dog, but I certainly want to, you know, slow down a little bit.
I think what we've noticed too is it comes across, you know this stuff like the back of your hand. You could do it in your sleep. so when you talk about talking fast, I think it's more about you are witnessing it on the inside of your brain and you're thinking fast because you know all of these things and you've seen so much. On the outside, it doesn't sound like you're talking too fast, but I know what you mean in that because you know all these things and you're 10 steps ahead. So it might very well feel like that. And just being conscious of the fact that
(:your listener doesn't, right? Especially that you're doing jury trials. And that's where the deliberate slowing down needs to happen. Not about the pace of your talk, but about the teaching and, you know, and making sure that they're up to speed in that way and the information, not in what's coming out of your mouth. Speed wise, yeah.
Well, to wrap this up, we're at least for these first few episodes, I'm doing something that we used to do at the end of improv shows is where we talk about our just mentioned really quickly our favorite things of that show or practice or whatever. And so we're adopting our little segment called three things. So I'm just going to tell you the three favorite things I had from your crosses, which was five miles over the speed limit. It was defining things for Chuck and it was all the things she
didn't know from Bruce, which was really great. If you're listening to this, your trial lawyer, you want to be a part of this podcast, or if you have a case or type of case that would be really interesting, look down at the notes below. Reach out to us. We'd love to either have you on as a guest or take on a witness that is inspired by a case of yours. And other than that, Olivia, anything to add?
Thank you all so much for taking the time. Your clients are so lucky to have you in the just continual education that you guys do and the work that you share altogether and really taking in what your colleagues have to offer. It's really wonderful and inspiring.
Absolutely. Thank you all so much and we'll see you next time.
(: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 by Steve Hohman 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
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.
