Joe rose to his feet. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the evidence from both sides. You will be deciding the appropriate amount of compensation required to put Jean Smith back in the position she was in before this accident. You will be considering all of the evidence. I will be going over certain parts of the evidence today as I believe it is crucial."

Joe continued. "At the beginning of the trial you swore an oath to give a true verdict based on the evidence. Please do not do so on the basis of emotion or rhetoric. Deliver a verdict based on the facts. And please do so carefully. Remember that if the result is wrong, Jean Smith does not get another chance to come before you."

"Consider the evidence of the physical medicine specialist, Dr. Ross. She was the dark haired lady who testified by closed circuit TV from Vancouver. She testified that the most obvious injury suffered by Jean was the fracture in her hand. However, she also said that Jean continued to be bothered more by the pain in her neck and back. She testified that this pain has developed into a chronic pain syndrome and will bother Jean for the rest of her life."

Joe went on. "My opponent will likely say that this pain is invisible and that you should be skeptical. However, I want you to consider the evidence of Jean's family, her co-workers and friends. They were all adamant that she is a changed person. You heard her employer say she is no longer as reliable as she was. Her husband and sons described the changes in their relationship."

"And most importantly you had a chance to meet and get to know Jean Smith. You heard her testimony and I know you will have concluded that she is a person whom you can believe. Let me give you some specific examples of the testimony you should consider as you make your decision…….."

Later that evening Jean and her husband sat together. Rick spoke. "There seemed to be so many things he didn't mention," he said. "I agree," replied Jean. "But you can't repeat everything that was said in the trial. I liked what he said about focusing on the key points and trying to touch on things that would trigger the jury members' memory. Assuming they do believe me it helps if they remember the important points."

A trial requires that many choices are made by the lawyer. Before summing up the case for the jury the evidence must be carefully considered. Sometimes the evidence is different than what is expected. Sometimes witnesses stand out. A skilled lawyer must be ready to change the approach to reflect the evidence. This requires a full understanding of the case and the ability to think the matter through carefully before beginning to speak. As trials become more complex it helps if the lawyer has a complete understanding of the subject matter. That is why at Horne Marr Zak, we limit our practice to personal injury.