Hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by personal injury attorney Susie Injijian, as well as actor and writer Sara Taylor.

Watch as Susie cross-examines Sara, portraying a sympathetic kindergarten teacher whose vehicle struck a Guatemalan-born pedestrian.

Listen in as Susie challenges Sara, and we break down how to confront bias in the courtroom.

What’s covered in this episode:

1. Talking ‘money grab’ and other biases in voir dire
2. Who to call to the stand when the damages aren’t visible
3. How to keep a crying witness from derailing your cross
4. The tech savvy way to make sure your word choice sticks
5. What you need to know to blow your witness’ testimony out of the water

Time Stamps

00:00 What’s Cross Lab?

4:38 The importance of being in a plaintiff friendly county—and how to figure that out

8:13 Broaching the “b-word” in voir dire

16:35 What to do when your client’s damages aren't visible

24:15 Mock Case Overview: Lopez vs Maddison

30:29 Susie’s Cross: Crossing an “angelic” defendant

49:02 How to handle (and stay in control of) when the water works start

1:19:52 The key touchstones that will help you flip your witness

1:27:18 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like this

To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com

Key Insights:

How to Cross-Examine a Sympathetic Defendant Without Alienating the Jury

When the opposing party is likable — a kindergarten teacher, a young parent, a community volunteer — the instinct to soften your cross can cost your client the case. But attacking them head-on will cost you the jury. The answer is neither soft nor aggressive. It's factual.

In this episode, award-winning trial attorney Susie Injijian demonstrates how a calm, fact-based, step-by-step approach disarms a sympathetic defendant more effectively than confrontation ever could. By respecting the witness's humanity while methodically walking through undeniable facts, she removes the jury's impulse to protect the defendant — because there's nothing to protect her from. As guest witness Sara Taylor noted from the stand: "There wasn't really anything you were giving me that I felt like I had the right to fight you on."

The key: set an intention for how you want the jury to feel when you sit down. Not angry at the defendant. Not sorry for her. Just clear on what happened and what it cost your client.

Why Confirming the Defendant's Own Story Builds Trust — and Gets Better Admissions

Most attorneys avoid validating anything the defense has put forward. Injijian does the opposite. When she confirmed that the sun was in the defendant's eyes — a fact that could arguably help the defense — it had a surprising effect: the witness relaxed and became more cooperative.

Sara Taylor, playing the defendant, explained it this way: "She sees me. She's not trying to accuse me of using my phone. For you to confirm my story was actually really successful in getting me on your side." That comfort led to a witness who stopped guarding her answers and simply agreed with everything that followed — including the most damaging admissions.

This is the principle behind what Trial Haus calls a "Yes, And" cross: rather than fighting the witness's version of events, you build on it. You own their story, and in doing so, you control where it goes.

Using Sensory Details and Word Choice to Paint a Picture the Jury Can't Forget

Injijian didn't ask the defendant to summarize the accident. She reconstructed it sensation by sensation: the thud at the front of the car, the body becoming airborne, the impact against the windshield, the body flung to the ground. Then the tire rolling over something hard — "like you'd hit a rock or something." And then the reveal: that was the plaintiff's dog.

Every word was chosen to put the jury in the driver's seat. The witness couldn't deny any of it, and she didn't try. As Sara Taylor put it from an actor's perspective: "There was no way for me as the witness to not relive exactly what happened. It was completely laid out for me in every sense."

The lesson for attorneys: don't summarize. Reconstruct. One fact per question. One sensation at a time. Let the jury see it, hear it, and feel it through the defendant's own confirmation.

How a Dog Can Humanize Your Plaintiff and Cut Through Jury Bias

In a case where the plaintiff is an immigrant carpenter and the defendant is a beloved local kindergarten teacher, racial and socioeconomic bias can quietly tilt the jury. Injijian's strategy to level the playing field was unexpected: she focused on the plaintiff's dog.

By establishing that Mr. Lopez was cradling his injured, bleeding dog Tonki in his arms after the collision — and that this was why he waved off the ambulance and said "I'm okay" — she gave the jury a universal point of connection. As Injijian explained: "People understand the love of a dog. That puts us all on the same level. We see past ethnicity and demographics when we see a person holding his bleeding dog."

The dog detail also served a strategic purpose: it explained away a fact the defense would have used against the plaintiff — that he refused medical treatment at the scene. He wasn't minimizing his injuries. He was thinking about his dog first. Attorneys often hesitate to bring up details that aren't directly tied to damages, but the right humanizing detail can reshape how a jury sees everything else.

How to Keep a Crying Witness from Derailing Your Cross-Examination

A witness who breaks down in tears can shift the jury's sympathy instantly — and away from your client. The instinct is to either press harder (which makes you the villain) or back off entirely (which gives the witness control). Injijian found a third path: she maintained a consistent, factual pace that kept the witness just uncomfortable enough to stay engaged, but never attacked enough to justify tears.

Sara Taylor, who played the defendant and came close to crying several times, explained the dynamic from the witness chair: "I was way more comfortable than I was expecting to be. The way that you spoke to me was so kind that I was like, okay, I just have to listen and answer the questions and I can get through this." That calm pacing denied her the emotional trigger that would have allowed tears to take over.

Injijian's backup plan, had the witness started crying: jump to a different chapter of the cross entirely. Move away from the emotional moment — maybe pivot to a factual question about the father or the timeline — then circle back once the witness has regrouped. The goal isn't to prevent emotion. It's to prevent emotion from becoming the story.

The Power of What the Pastor Didn't Do — Exposing Character Through Inaction

One of the most devastating moments in the cross came not from what the defendant did, but from what her father — a well-known local pastor — didn't do. When he arrived at the scene, he spoke with police officers for an extended period. He never approached the injured Mr. Lopez. He never asked if the man his daughter had just hit with a car was okay. Then the family left together.

Injijian never accused the pastor of anything. She simply established the facts: he came, he talked to police, he didn't check on the injured man, they left. The jury draws its own conclusion. And in a case where the defendant's identity as the daughter of a prominent Christian leader could generate sympathy, that silent contrast — "love thy neighbor" values versus the reality of what happened — is more powerful than any argument an attorney could make.

From an acting and storytelling perspective, this is a classic example of showing rather than telling. The attorney doesn't need to editorialize. The facts, laid out in sequence, do the work.

Hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by criminal defense and civil rights attorney Bruce Ringstrom, and plaintiff’s personal injury attorney Fred Bryant.

Watch as they put Officer Brown (played by Steve) on the stand and challenge his version of events to prove their client did not knowingly help her son evade arrest.

This episode is based on a real case from a listener looking for new perspectives on their upcoming trial. To submit your case for an upcoming episode click HERE!

What’s covered in this episode:

1. How to turn minimal evidence into explosive revelations
2. Creating real-time surplus reality
3. Why breaking the #1 “baby lawyer” rule can can pay off
4. What to do when a witness doesn’t give you what you want
5. The “who’s the jerk now?” method—this is gold!

Time Stamps

00:00 What’s Cross Lab?

9:24 The blurred line advantages of working with family in your law firm

15:26 Mock Case Overview: State of Idaho vs. Darla Roberts

17:08 How to cross a witness with minimal evidence—and uncover explosive surprises (the good kind)

20:00 Bruce’s cross: Building surplus reality

38:53 Why it’s worth breaking a “baby lawyer” rule

40:25 The top fall back when a witness doesn’t give you what you want

49:52 An easy technique to reset and rattle a witness at the same time

53:44 Fred’s cross: The “who’s the jerk now?” approach

1:08:25 Why tagging your questions with a “isn’t that correct?” can show a lack of confidence

1:13:24 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like this

To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com

Key Insights from This Episode

How to Build Foundational Chapters in Cross-Examination Before Getting to the Key Admissions

Great cross-examinations don't start with the kill shot. Both attorneys in this episode demonstrated the discipline of building foundational chapters — the predicate questions that may feel slow but make the payoff devastating. Bruce Ringstrom spent his entire 15 minutes establishing the officer's role, what evidence he reviewed, the layout of the scene, and the timeline — never once reaching his hardest questions. As he explained afterward, with a big witness, you can spend an hour on predicate questions before you pivot to the material that changes the gravity in the courtroom.

Fred Bryant took the same approach from a different angle, methodically establishing the officer's training, his duty to know the elements of a crime, and the sequence of how he arrived at the scene. Both attorneys acknowledged they never "got to the meat" — and both made clear that was the point. The foundational chapters are what make the later admissions land. Without them, you're asking a jury to trust conclusions they haven't been walked to. With them, the jury arrives at the conclusion before you do.

Using Surplus Reality to Prepare Cross-Examination Questions with Limited Discovery

Criminal defense attorneys often go to trial with far less discovery than their civil counterparts — no depositions, limited reports, sometimes just a police narrative and whatever the officer remembers. Bruce Ringstrom introduced the concept of "surplus reality" as a way to prepare in those conditions: imagine the exchange with the witness, consider every possible answer they could give, and identify what's logically required even without direct evidence. If the case involves a squad car, you can safely assume it has a gas pedal. If officers were outside a trailer, you can reason through what they could and couldn't see from that position.

This approach turns preparation into a creative exercise. Bruce used it to build an entire line of questioning around the timing of backup arriving — reasoning that if officers were already en route and arrived quickly, Darla Roberts had almost no opportunity to do what the prosecution claimed she did. The officer even helped Bruce's theory by volunteering that he'd called for backup early. That's the power of surplus reality: when you've mapped every possible answer, even the unexpected ones become useful.

How Consent to Enter a Home Without a Warrant Can Prove Your Client Had Nothing to Hide

One of the strongest moments in Bruce Ringstrom's cross came from a deceptively simple sequence. He established that the officer had no search warrant for Kit Frost's residence. He established that the officer had no arrest warrant listing that address. And then he established that despite all of that, Darla Roberts — through the household — let the officers in voluntarily. Bruce then delivered the line that locked the admission: "Whether you have probable cause or not, they let you in the door, correct?"

That sequence does double work. On the legal side, it puts the consent question on record. But narratively, it paints a picture for the jury: a woman who opens her door to police is not a woman hiding a fugitive in the backyard shed. Olivia Espinosa called it one of the strongest moments of the episode because it was so clear — Bruce walked the listener through the logic step by step so the conclusion arrived naturally, not as argument, but as common sense.

How to Impeach a Police Officer Using Their Own Report on Cross-Examination

When Officer Brown tried to minimize the gap in the shed door — first calling it less than a foot, then saying he'd disagree with a one-foot estimate — Bruce Ringstrom had a simple, devastating response already loaded. He walked the officer through confirming he'd written his report shortly after the incident, when facts were fresh, and that he'd included every detail he considered germane. Then he revealed that the officer's own report described the gap as approximately one foot. The officer backed down immediately: "I won't fight you if that's what it says."

This is a textbook impeachment pattern that works in any practice area. Establish the report's reliability first — it was written close in time, the officer was thorough, the facts were fresh. Only then confront the contradiction. The officer can't attack his own report without undermining his credibility on everything else in it. And the jury sees an officer whose testimony shifted between the written record and the stand, which raises a question that carries into deliberations: what else changed?

The "Yes Train" Strategy — Building Up a Witness to Lower Their Defenses

Fred Bryant's cross-examination of Officer Brown looked nothing like Bruce Ringstrom's — and that was entirely by design. Where Bruce projected command and authority from the first question, Fred opened by complimenting the officer. You're on the front lines. You react quickly. You react decisively. You secure order in chaos. Every question was so agreeable that the officer had no reason to resist, and he said yes to nearly everything. Fred called this the "who's the jerk now" strategy: if you build a witness up and act like their ally, the moment they fight you, the jury wonders what provoked it.

Steve noted afterward that he felt genuinely different in the chair during Fred's cross. With Bruce, he was guarded and careful. With Fred, he was at ease — even volunteering more information than he intended. That's not a weakness in Bruce's approach; it's a strength in Fred's. The Yes, And Method works exactly this way. By affirming and building the witness's own story first, the attorney earns compliance. The witness relaxes into a pattern of agreement. And by the time the questions shift, the witness has already committed to a version of events that serves the defense — and can't walk it back without looking evasive.

How to Expose What a Police Officer Didn't Know and Didn't Plan For

Fred Bryant's second major strategy was establishing everything the officers didn't know and hadn't planned. They didn't know where the car was going. They'd never been to this specific trailer before. There was no audio set up inside. No video. No stakeout. They couldn't hear conversations from their vehicle. They couldn't see inside the trailer. They didn't know how many people were inside when they arrived. Fred never argued a conclusion from any of this — he simply stacked the unknowns, one after another, each one confirmed with a quiet "yes" or "correct."

Bruce Ringstrom recognized afterward how powerful this was, noting that Fred found a question he himself couldn't figure out how to form: "You didn't plan to arrive at 1154 Fifth Street." That single admission reframed the entire encounter — this wasn't a controlled operation, it was reactive. Combined with all the unknowns Fred had cataloged, the foundation was set for a closing argument that practically writes itself: the prosecution is asking you to believe an officer who had no surveillance, no audio, no video, and no prior knowledge of this location somehow knows exactly what happened inside that trailer.

Hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by personal injury and family law attorney Shane Henry, as well as noted TV, film and theater actor, producer and director Jean Bruce Scott.

Watch as Shane cross-examines Jean, who plays this episode’s mock witness—a devoted grandma testifying on behalf of her son who’s seeking primary custody of his 2 children.

Shane challenges Jean’s claims in this masterclass of constructive cross-examination.

What’s covered in this episode:

1. The funnel that traps the witness and triggers the jury’s ‘aha!’ moment
2. What Bryan Cranston and Tom Hanks share—and why it’s essential for trial lawyers
3. How a fact-focused cross can open doors you didn’t expect
4. The low-key cue that signals you’ve got the opposing witness under your control
5. A simple way to collect testimony gold—ready for closing, ASAP

Time Stamps

00:00 What’s Cross Lab?

2:55 The real power of constructive cross—for your witness, judge, and jury

10:15 Structuring your questions to box in the witness and create an ‘aha!’ moment for the jury

17:45 The “secret” to performing that hooks your audience and keeps you credible

21:25 What successful big-money verdict attorneys have in common

29:30 Mock Case Overview: Stills vs. Stills

34:34 Shane’s Cross: Building a clear picture—one fact at a time

57:14 A subtle cue that proves you're steering the witness

59:56 How to collect key testimony—so your closing organizes itself

1:09:17 Tips for managing performance anxiety

1:13:41 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like this

To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com

Key Insights from This Episode

How to Cross-Examine a Sympathetic Witness in Family Court Without Alienating the Judge

In family law bench trials, the judge is both your audience and your decision-maker — and judges don't want to watch an attorney bully a grandmother. Shane Henry approached his cross of Sandra Stills, a retired schoolteacher and devoted grandparent, with that reality front and center. He opened by establishing her love for her grandchildren, letting her face light up while talking about her family. He affirmed that she's reliable, that they can count on her, that family comes first. Every early question was designed to make her feel heard — not cornered.

This is the constructive cross at work in one of its most practical settings. As Shane explained, if a judge sees a lawyer pushing on a little kid at the playground, their instinct is to protect the child. The same dynamic applies to a sympathetic witness in the courtroom. The goal is never to destroy a grandmother's credibility — it's to redirect the court's focus back to the two parents and away from a well-meaning but overreaching grandparent. Shane did that by gathering facts, not forcing conclusions, and saving his sharpest arguments for closing.

How the "Yes Train" Works to Lower a Witness's Defenses in Cross-Examination

One of the clearest demonstrations of the Yes, And Method in this episode came from how Shane Henry built momentum through agreement. By starting with indisputable, flattering facts — you love your family, Jonathan is successful, his work is demanding — he created a pattern of "yes" responses that became almost reflexive. The witness was nodding along, expanding on her answers, even volunteering information Shane hadn't asked for. Steve and Olivia call this the "yes train," and it's a phenomenon they see consistently in their cross-examination simulations: once a witness enters an agreeable rhythm, they have to consciously resist it — and most don't.

The power of the yes train is that it works on the witness's psychology without confrontation. Sandra Stills wasn't fighting Shane because there was nothing to fight about. He was complimenting her son, affirming her role, acknowledging her dedication. By the time the questions shifted to Jonathan being on the road 20 or more days per month and being unreachable during his son's medical emergency, the witness had already confirmed the facts that made those conclusions inevitable. She'd built the case against her own position — willingly and conversationally.

How to Expose a Double Standard Between Parents in a Custody Case Using Only Facts

The strongest sequence in Shane Henry's cross came from a deceptively simple comparison. He established that Jonathan, as a venture capitalist, traveled more than 20 days per month — over 60% of the time. He established that during Garrett's medical emergency, Jonathan was out of town and couldn't come. He established that Rebecca, the mother Sandra had called "unreliable," arrived at the hospital within 90 minutes of her son being admitted. And he established that Jonathan didn't arrive until that evening. Shane never argued the conclusion. He just placed the facts side by side and stopped.

For a judge hearing a bench trial, that sequence reframes the entire case. Sandra's direct testimony had painted Rebecca as career-focused and absent. But when the same standard is applied to both parents through the same incident, the picture looks very different. Rebecca was there in 90 minutes. Jonathan arrived hours later. The grandmother — not the father — was the one who picked the child up. Shane didn't need to say "double standard." The facts said it for him. As he noted afterward, the closing argument practically writes itself once the admissions are locked in.

When to Let a Witness Talk Too Much on Cross-Examination — and How to Use It

One of the most instructive moments in the debrief came when the panel discussed what to do when a witness won't stop talking. Jean Bruce Scott, playing Sandra Stills, repeatedly expanded beyond the scope of Shane's questions — volunteering details about Jonathan's FaceTime calls, his karate sessions with Garrett, and the dog he bought for the family. Rather than cutting her off or fighting for control, Shane listened for useful words and phrases, then looped them back into his next question to steer the cross back on track.

But the bigger insight came afterward. Shane, Steve, and Olivia all recognized that Sandra's tendency to make things about herself — "I am the reliability," "I'm there 24/7" — was actually the most valuable admission of all. In a case between two parents, a grandmother who positions herself as the indispensable caregiver inadvertently undercuts her own son's case. Shane's takeaway: if he crossed this witness again, he would let her talk even more, because every time she inserted herself as the primary caretaker, she was making the opposing counsel's argument for them. Sometimes the best cross-examination move is to get out of the witness's way.

Why Sincerity and Vulnerability Are More Persuasive Than Aggression in the Courtroom

A recurring theme throughout this episode — reinforced by both Shane Henry and actress Jean Bruce Scott — is that sincerity outperforms performance in the courtroom. Jean drew from her decades of acting experience to make the point: the actors audiences love most, like Tom Hanks or Bryan Cranston, aren't performing tricks. They're committed to the truth of their character. The same principle applies to trial lawyers. A judge or jury can spot someone playing a role, and it destroys credibility instantly.

Shane confirmed this from the attorney's side. Early in his career, he spent years trying to be his mentors — mimicking their style, their presence, their delivery. It wasn't until an older lawyer pulled him aside and told him he'd never be them that Shane found his own voice. That advice mirrors what Steve and Olivia see with the attorneys they coach: the ones getting the biggest verdicts aren't the most polished or aggressive. They're the most curious, the most present, and the most willing to show who they actually are. As Jean put it, sincerity is a weapon — and it's one nobody else has because it belongs only to you.

How to Use Looping in Cross-Examination to Control the Narrative Without Confrontation

One of the subtlest and most effective techniques Shane demonstrated was looping — taking a word or phrase the witness offered and weaving it back into subsequent questions. When Sandra mentioned that Jonathan is "on the road," Shane repeated that phrase across multiple questions, turning it into a running theme: on the road, on the road 20 or more days, on the road over 60% of the time. The phrase stopped being Sandra's casual description and became a damning pattern. Similarly, when Sandra said Jonathan is "good at his job," Shane looped that back: he's so good at his job that he's gone most of the month.

Olivia pointed out during the debrief that Sandra actually started looping Shane's language back without realizing it — repeating his phrasing, echoing his framing. That's the hallmark of a witness who has been brought into the attorney's narrative rhythm. She wasn't fighting the characterization because the words felt like her own. Looping works because it doesn't introduce new language that a witness might resist. It simply borrows their own words and redirects them toward your goal. The witness stays comfortable. The fact-finder hears the same phrase repeated until it becomes the dominant frame for that chapter of the case.

We’re calling this special episode of Cross Lab…Cross Pollination!

Hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are bringing together their community of theater makers and professional storytellers for a powerful conversation.

Our guests—Cecelia Kouma, Mabelle Reynoso, and Arturo Medina from Playwrights Project—are producers, actors, playwrights, and educators who teach playwriting in prisons.

Tune in as they share their work, their wisdom, and storytelling techniques that can transform how you build narratives in the courtroom.

Instagram @playwrightsproject

What’s covered in this episode:

1. How to turn facts into a story—even if you don’t think you're a storyteller
2. 4 story kickstarters for a compelling narrative
3. The essential hook that makes your listener root for your client
4. Why “falling in love” with your client is non-negotiable
5. The no-brainer step to make your opening statement click with your fact-finders

Time Stamps

00:00 What’s this special episode of Cross Lab all about?

5:23 About Playwrights Project and their work in carceral spaces

11:29 The power of storytelling for healing and transformation

17:32 Where to start—4 storytelling lifelines when you’re buried under a mountain of facts

25:30 How to unlock your client’s real story—and why they’re giving you the “safe” version

32:40 What the best attorneys we’ve seen have in common

39:23 The #1 thing your listener needs for a story to land and feel real

49:00 How to make sure your story is fleshed out and accessible for anyone (perfect for an opening statement!)

1:06:03 Don’t think you're a storyteller? Here’s the cure.

To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com

Key Insights from This Episode

How Sensory Details Make a Case Narrative Come Alive for a Jury

One of the most practical storytelling techniques discussed in this episode came from Arturo Medina, who teaches playwriting to inmates at Centinela State Prison and Donovan Correctional Facility. When he helps a new writer develop a story, he starts with sensory questions: What does your neighborhood smell like? What does it taste like? What does it look like in the morning versus at night? The writers start answering — chile relleno in the morning, carne asada at night — and suddenly the details flow. They're painting a picture without being asked to "tell their story."

This is exactly the technique trial consultants and storytelling coaches use with attorneys preparing opening statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments. A jury doesn't connect with a summary of events. They connect when they can smell, see, and feel the moment. When Arturo's students start using sensory language, they stop narrating and start transporting — and that's the same shift an attorney needs to make when presenting a case. Abstract facts become lived experience. The audience stops observing and starts participating.

Why Slowing Down a Key Moment Step by Step Is More Powerful Than Showing the Whole Event

Cecilia Cuma, executive director of Playwrights Project, shared a story from Olivia Espinosa's time teaching playwriting in juvenile hall. A young man wanted to write about the day his cousin was shot in a park while he was standing nearby. The program doesn't allow violence on stage, so Olivia guided him to slow the moment down and recount it in incremental steps: a car passing that didn't look familiar, a window rolling down, a gun appearing, a bullet grazing his ear, turning to see his cousin fall. The audience never sees the act of violence — but they feel every second of it because the writer walked them through it one detail at a time.

This technique translates directly to trial work. Attorneys don't get to show a jury the moment of injury, the accident, or the crime. They have to reconstruct it through testimony and narrative. When that reconstruction moves fact by fact in slow, deliberate sequence — without jumping to conclusions or editorializing — the jury doesn't just hear what happened. They relive it alongside the witness. The incremental approach also prevents the attorney from projecting opinions onto the facts. The facts do the work. The jury arrives at the emotional truth on their own.

How to Build Trust with a Traumatized Client Who Doesn't Want to Share Their Story

Arturo Medina brought a perspective to this episode that no attorney or consultant could — he's been on the other side of the table. As a young man navigating the justice system, he had attorneys who didn't listen, who walked in with a predetermined agenda, and who made him feel like he had to present a "fake version" of himself for them to use in court. It didn't work, he said, because it wasn't authentic. The story they told wasn't his story. He also had a public defender who simply listened to everything, earned his trust, and fought for him — and that was the one who succeeded.

The lesson for attorneys is that trust has to come before strategy. People who've been through trauma often feel their story doesn't matter or that sharing it will be used against them. Cecilia Cuma described her approach: come in as your authentic self, acknowledge what you don't know, and show genuine curiosity rather than pretending to understand an experience you haven't lived. Mabel Reynoso added that the most important thing is simply showing up — consistently, reliably — because trust builds through presence, not promises. For attorneys, that means the intake conversation and early meetings aren't just fact-gathering. They're the foundation that determines whether your client will give you the real story or the safe one.

What Attorneys Can Learn from Playwriting About Telling a Story Without Showing the Event

Playwrights Project operates under a rule that applies to every play written inside the prison: no violence on stage. Writers can explore violence, examine what led to it, and dramatize its aftermath — but they cannot glorify it or depict it directly. Cecilia Cuma explained the framework: focus on why the character felt it was the only choice, then focus on how it impacted that character and the people around them. The event itself stays off stage. The motivation before and the consequences after carry the story.

Attorneys face the same structural constraint every time they go to trial. A jury will never witness the accident, the assault, or the breach of duty. What they get is the story before and the impact after. The playwrights inside Centinela and Donovan learn to make that constraint a strength — and the work they produce is often more emotionally powerful because the audience's imagination fills in what isn't shown. Trial lawyers who learn to trust that same principle — lay out the motivation, lay out the consequences, let the fact-finder's mind do the rest — consistently produce more persuasive narratives than those who try to over-explain or recreate the event itself.

Why the Best Advocates Fall in Love with Their Client's Story

A theme that emerged across all three guests — and was reinforced by Steve and Olivia — is that the most effective storytelling comes from genuine investment in the person whose story you're telling. Arturo put it bluntly: stop being my lawyer for a moment. Get to know me. Make me feel important without me having to pay you first. He described the difference between attorneys who walked in with an agenda and the one who simply listened — and how that listening changed everything about the outcome.

Mabel Reynoso framed it from the teaching artist's perspective: when you spend time with someone and learn who they are, how can you not develop care for them? That care isn't a liability — it's what makes you fight harder and tell their story better. Steve confirmed this tracks with what he and Olivia see across their consulting practice: the attorneys getting the biggest results are the ones who find something to love about every client, even the complicated ones. They don't fake passion in front of a jury. They've earned it through the relationship. And a jury can feel the difference.

How to Make Complex or Unfamiliar Stories Accessible to Any Audience

One of the recurring challenges Playwrights Project faces is that their writers often create stories steeped in language, culture, and experiences that outside audiences don't share. Mabel Reynoso described new playwrights who want to keep their scripts secret until the big reveal, not realizing that theater is collaborative — it requires an agreement between stage and audience. The fix is simple but essential: hear the story out loud, in front of other people, and find out what's landing and what's missing. Your audience is not a mind reader.

For trial attorneys, the parallel is direct. Lawyers spend months immersed in a case and forget that the jury is hearing it for the first time with zero context. Jargon that feels natural to the attorney is gibberish to a juror. Narrative leaps that seem obvious after reviewing 500 pages of discovery are invisible to someone hearing the story cold. The Playwrights Project approach — workshop it, say it out loud, watch where people get lost — is exactly what mock trial preparation does for attorneys. And the underlying principle is the same one Steve raised in the episode: your job isn't to be the New Yorker. It's to be McDonald's. Accessible to everyone. No one left behind.

In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by plaintiff’s attorney Federico Lathrop and estate and trust attorney Mike Hackard.

Watch as they cross-examine Steve, who plays an occupational consultant and defense expert witness. They’ll challenge his opinion on the employability of the plaintiff, whose medical assessments reveal severe limitations that impact his ability to work.

Instagram:

@hackard_law

@fedelawyer

What’s covered in this episode:

1. How to balance expectations and earn trust with emotionally charged clients
2. The double edge sword of multi-fact questions
3. Questions that expose biases—no matter what the witness answers
4. What successful lawyers you love have in common
5. Why the word “AND” is the invitation you want to give to your jury

Time Stamps

00:00 What’s Cross Lab?

11:11 Balancing trust and expectations with clients experiencing trauma and grief

19:42 Mock Case Overview: Grayson vs. NextGen and Samuel Dent

21:55 Federico’s Cross: Exposing biases—no matter what the witness answers

40:14 What looping aka repeating your witness’s words does to an expert

45:09 The power (and danger) of stacking multiple facts into one question

49:28 The common traits successful lawyers have

53:12 Mike Cross: Word selection that paints a picture

1:11:48 The magic of "AND" for your jury

1:13:12 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like this

To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com

Key Insights from This Episode

How to Expose a Defense Expert's Financial Bias Using Their Own Testimony History

Federico Lathrop opened his cross of occupational consultant James Tuft by establishing a single, devastating number: of approximately 118 cases in which Tuft had testified as an expert, 107 were for the defense. That's 95% of his career spent being paid by insurance companies, employers, and defense firms. Tuft tried to deflect — "my findings are completely separate from who's hiring me" — but Federico didn't argue. He simply looped Tuft's own words back: "Although you give the same service regardless of who retains you, throughout your career, 95% of the time you have been testifying as an expert for the defense." The witness had no factual ground to fight on.

What made this sequence effective wasn't aggression — it was math. Federico didn't accuse Tuft of being biased. He laid out the numbers and let the jury do the arithmetic. By the time he asked whether Tuft's livelihood depended on defense firms continuing to hire him, the conclusion was already obvious to anyone listening. The witness denied it, but the denial only made him look defensive. This is a foundational chapter that any plaintiff's attorney can adapt: establish the ratio, let the expert claim independence, and then let the numbers speak louder than the claim.

How to Build a "Proper vs. Biased Evaluation" Framework to Cross-Examine Any Expert Witness

One of Federico Lathrop's most effective structural choices was building a framework before ever touching the expert's actual report. He walked James Tuft through agreeing that a proper case evaluation must be objective, then impartial, then complete — stacking each term one at a time so the trilogy stuck. Then he defined the opposite: a biased evaluation is one where a paid expert cherry-picks information supporting their desired opinion while ignoring contradicting evidence. Tuft agreed to every definition because each one, in isolation, was unobjectionable.

The power of this approach is that the attorney never has to accuse the expert of anything. The framework does the work. Once the jury has heard "objective, impartial, and complete" repeated multiple times — and has heard the expert agree that violating those standards risks misleading the jury about the plaintiff's true condition — every subsequent flaw in the report is measured against a standard the expert himself endorsed. Federico noted afterward that his next chapters would have walked through specific flaws in the report, and each one would have landed against the framework he'd already built. The jury doesn't need the attorney to argue bias. They just need the framework and the facts.

How to Dismantle an Expert's Credentials by Exposing What They Didn't Do

Michael Hackard's cross took a different approach from Federico's — where Federico built the bias framework, Hackard systematically cataloged everything the expert failed to do. Tuft never physically examined the plaintiff. Never met him. Never tested his actual capabilities. Never observed him trying to work. Never consulted the California Workforce Development Agency. Never spoke with local job placement specialists. Never interviewed California employers. His entire analysis was, as Hackard distilled it, "based upon paper review." Each fact was delivered as a short, one-fact question — and each one landed a quiet but cumulative blow.

What made Hackard's approach devastating was its simplicity. He didn't argue that Tuft was incompetent. He just listed what Tuft didn't do, one item at a time, and let the accumulation speak for itself. Olivia Espinosa described it during the debrief as "the executioner slowly walking him to his demise." Federico Lathrop noted that the power came from simplicity — short questions, straight to the point, building a narrative that was easy to follow. For any attorney facing an expert witness, this is a replicable pattern: establish what a thorough evaluation requires, then walk through every step the expert skipped.

How to Use Looping in Cross-Examination to Make a Witness Pay for Their Own Words

Both attorneys in this episode demonstrated the technique of looping — taking a witness's own words and weaving them back into subsequent questions — but each used it differently. Federico caught Tuft saying "that number sounds right to you" and immediately repeated it back as a confirmed fact. He caught "same services regardless" and connected it to the 95% defense testimony rate. Each loop tightened the narrative without introducing new language the witness could resist.

Hackard looped Tuft's phrase "thorough and accurate" into a devastating sequence: you said your analysis was thorough and accurate, and yet you failed to speak with local specialists, failed to consult the Workforce Development Agency, failed to analyze the actual job market for someone with this plaintiff's specific limitations. Steve noted during the debrief that the moment certain words left his mouth as the witness, he knew they were coming back at him — and that awareness made him feel "squirrely," more guarded, more likely to over-explain. That's the dual function of looping: it holds the witness accountable to their own language while signaling to the jury that the attorney is listening to every word.

Why Using "And" Instead of "But" Strengthens Cross-Examination Questions

A subtle but significant coaching point emerged during the debrief when Olivia Espinosa flagged Hackard's use of the word "but" in several questions and suggested replacing it with "and." The difference matters more than it sounds. When an attorney says "you said your evaluation was thorough, but you never examined the plaintiff," the word "but" inserts the attorney's opinion — it signals that the attorney is arguing. When the same question uses "and" — "you said your evaluation was thorough, and you never examined the plaintiff" — it simply places two facts side by side and invites the jury to resolve the contradiction themselves.

Steve confirmed from the witness chair that this distinction is felt, not just heard. A "but" triggers defensiveness because the witness senses an argument coming. An "and" feels more neutral, more factual — and paradoxically makes the contradiction land harder because the jury reaches the conclusion independently rather than having it pushed on them. Federico committed on the spot to practicing this substitution in everyday conversation so it becomes reflexive at trial. It's a small change in language that produces a measurable shift in how a fact-finder processes the information.

How an Expert Witness's Volunteered Words Can Become Closing Argument Ammunition

One of the most instructive moments came when Federico Lathrop spotted something Hackard missed during his cross. When pressed about relying on paper records, Tuft said he was "assuming" the medical records were accurate. Federico pointed out afterward that "assume" was a loaded word the attorney could have looped into a devastating chapter — what else did you assume? You assumed the records were accurate. You assumed the job market conditions. You assumed the plaintiff's capabilities without ever meeting him. The word opened a door to reframe the entire evaluation as assumption-based rather than evidence-based.

This is the kind of real-time opportunity that separates good cross-examiners from great ones. Steve confirmed from the witness chair that the moment the word "assuming" came out, he knew it was dangerous — he just hoped the attorney wouldn't catch it. Olivia noted it could have become a trilogy on its own: you assumed the records, you assumed the market, you assumed the capabilities. The broader lesson for trial attorneys is that expert witnesses, especially those who volunteer explanations, will hand you language that's more powerful than anything you could have scripted — if you're listening for it.

In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by barrister and advocacy coach Bibi Badejo.

Watch Bibi cross-examine both Steve and Olivia, who portray a divorced couple where neither party has clean hands. Bibi skillfully challenges each of their stories and their roles in a complex, multi-suit case involving large sums of money, kids and old wounds.

What’s covered in this episode:

1. The foundation you can lay that boxes any witness in—and pays off big time
2. A go-to framework for defending your client (even when their actions make zero sense)
3. What your listener is really thinking when you’re sticking a witness to the question
4. The sneaky way to trap a witness in their own admissions
5. How to slice away a witness's opinion from the real evidence

Time Stamps

00:00 What’s Cross Lab?

2:20 The question to ask yourself that steers the judge and jury where you want them

3:14 How to adjust your language for judges and juries—and what juries don't want from you

6:18 A genius ‘common sense’ strategy to defend your client’s actions (even when they don’t make sense)

17:00 Mock Case Overview: Butler vs. Butler

19:38 Bibi’s Cross on Dane Butler: One fact questions that lay the foundation for a big payoff!

38:18 Painting a picture with facts that corner the witness and let their discomfort tell your story.

43:01 How starting with general questions can trap a witness with their own admissions

48:28 What your listener is thinking when you hold a witness to the question

55:26 Cross of Lily: Expertly separating a witness's opinion from the real evidence

1:20:02 Repetition that works for you—no matter what the witness says

Bibi’s website: https://www.theadvocacycoach.com/

The Advocacy Podcast https://www.theadvocacypodcast.com/

To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com

Key Insights from This Episode

How to Cross-Examine an Emotionally Charged Witness Without Losing Control of the Examination

Bibi Badejo demonstrated throughout both cross-examinations in this episode that controlling an emotional witness isn't about matching their energy — it's about staying steady while they escalate. She described her approach as being like a steamroller: constant, even pressure that never lets up and never gets flustered by unexpected answers. When Steve, playing Dane Butler, started giving long explanations and deflecting, Bibi kept her questions short, repeated them when they weren't answered, and simply moved forward when she had what she needed. The technique worked because every time the witness rambled and she calmly re-asked the same question, the listener's takeaway wasn't about what the witness said — it was that the witness was avoiding the answer.

Steve confirmed from the witness chair that this was deeply uncomfortable. He knew he owed a yes or no, and every time Bibi pressed for one, she gained more control. The key insight for attorneys is that short questions do double work against emotional witnesses: they're easier for the attorney to remember and repeat, and they make any long-winded answer from the witness look evasive by contrast. As Olivia noted, when a jury or judge hears a three-word question followed by a two-minute non-answer, they stop listening to the witness and start trusting the attorney.

How to Set Up Win-Win Questions Where Every Answer Helps Your Case

One of Bibi Badejo's most effective patterns in this episode was crafting questions where she won regardless of the answer. The clearest example came at the end of her cross of Dane Butler, when she asked whether he thought it was fair that despite Lily having the children over 70% of the time, she should only receive half the marital assets. If he said no, that was an admission she could use directly. If he said yes — which he did — she had a sound bite for closing that made him look unreasonable. Either answer served her narrative. She stopped right there, telling Steve and Olivia afterward: "I would end it there because I'm going to use that in my submissions."

The same pattern appeared earlier when she pressed Dane on whether $20,000 was a lot of money. His answer — that it wasn't, given his line of work — made him seem out of touch to anyone listening. Bibi didn't need him to agree it was a lot. His dismissal was more useful than his agreement would have been. The lesson for attorneys is to stop designing questions around getting a specific answer and instead design them so that every possible response advances your narrative. As Steve put it during the debrief: "You put him in a box that no matter which way he went, he loses."

How to Use Proportionality and Math to Undermine a Witness's Justification

When Bibi crossed Olivia as Lily Butler, she faced a sympathetic witness with a compelling emotional defense: she moved the money to protect her children from a gambling addict. Rather than attacking that emotional logic head-on, Bibi dismantled it with math. She established that the largest single gambling loss Dane had ever incurred was $20,000. She then showed that $20,000 represented only 9% of the joint checking account — and only 0.45% of the total liquid wealth of $4.42 million. To protect against a potential loss of less than half a percent, Lily had moved every dollar the family had.

The proportionality argument doesn't require the attorney to call the witness unreasonable. The numbers do that work on their own. Lily kept repeating that $20,000 was a lot to her family, which only reinforced Bibi's point: if $20,000 is a lot, then what is $4.2 million? The technique works in any case where a party's response was disproportionate to the triggering event — personal injury, contract disputes, family law. Let the witness cling to their justification while the math tells the real story.

How to Expose That a Witness Acted Impulsively by Walking Through Every Step They Took

One of Bibi's most effective chapters in her cross of Lily was reconstructing the timeline of her financial moves step by step. She found out about Vegas at 9 AM. She was at the bank when it opened at 10 AM. Within that single hour, she closed two checking accounts, emptied a savings account, liquidated a $4.2 million investment portfolio, opened new accounts at a different bank — bringing her identity documents — and transferred everything into accounts only she could access. Bibi then layered on what Lily didn't do: she didn't consult a tax advisor, didn't get advice on early withdrawal penalties, didn't consider the loss of investment position, and didn't seek any legal counsel despite having lawyers involved in the divorce agreement.

Steve noted afterward that this breakdown was devastating precisely because it walked the listener through each individual action. When a witness says "I did what I had to do to protect my family," it sounds reasonable in the abstract. But when an attorney breaks that claim into its component steps — each one deliberate, each one requiring a signature or a decision — the picture shifts from protective instinct to calculated execution. The listener can see the contradiction: you claim this was an impulsive reaction to a manic episode, but you had your documents ready and hit three institutions before lunch.

How to Build a Case Narrative for a Bench Trial Where Judges Don't Want Emotional Arguments

Bibi Badejo brought a perspective rarely heard on American legal podcasts — she tries cases exclusively in front of judges in the UK family law system, with no juries at all. Her approach to persuasion in that environment is fundamentally different from what many American trial attorneys practice: less emotion, more evidence, and trusting the judge to reach the conclusion without being told what to feel. As Bibi explained, if she wants the judge to think someone is a scoundrel, she doesn't use the word. She builds the factual building blocks that lead the judge to think it — or something worse — on their own.

What's striking is how directly this translates to the constructive cross approach. Steve pointed out that even in jury trials, the same principle applies: a jury will own a conclusion they reach themselves far more than one an attorney pushes on them. Bibi's technique of tying every claim back to concrete evidence, using logic and common sense rather than emotional language, and letting the facts create the feeling is exactly the discipline that makes cross-examination persuasive in any setting. The judge doesn't want to hear that your opponent is unreasonable. The judge wants to see the math that proves it — and then reach "unreasonable" without being told.

Why Profiling Your Witness Before Cross-Examination Changes How You Ask Every Question

Before any cross begins, Bibi Badejo builds a profile of the witness that goes far beyond their testimony. She thinks about who they are as a person, how they're likely to respond under pressure, how she wants them to feel during questioning, how she wants them to feel afterward, and — critically — how she wants the judge to perceive them by the time she's done. This profiling drove her to approach Dane and Lily completely differently in the same episode, even though they were opposing parties in the same case.

With Dane, she applied steady pressure knowing he'd get defensive and start volunteering excuses — each one giving her more material. With Lily, she anticipated a sympathetic, likeable witness and chose proportionality and math over emotional confrontation, knowing that attacking a mother protecting her children would backfire. The profiling also informed her tone: she described setting an "intention" for herself before each cross that governed her pacing, her firmness, and when to push versus when to simply collect the admission and move on. For attorneys who tend to use the same approach for every witness, this episode is a masterclass in how preparation at the character level — not just the fact level — transforms the effectiveness of a cross.

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:

1. How crossing an expert witness can change your word selection
2. The hidden role gender can play in your cross-examination
3. An easy demonstrative to illustrate percentage points for your jury
4. Using the expert to expose mishandlings in the case and create reasonable doubt
5. What taking a moment to pause can do to a witness
6. 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 TrialHaus.com

Key Insights from This Episode

How to Define Technical Terms on Cross-Examination So the Jury Understands What the Expert Is Conceding

Chuck Rathbun opened his cross of state toxicologist Dr. Charlotte Ebers with a masterclass in definitional control. Before touching a single case fact, he walked her through agreeing that science is based on repeatability, not conjecture or bias. Then he moved to the word "validation" — getting her to agree it means the results are accurate, correct, can be trusted, and are reliable. Each synonym built on the last, creating a chain of agreement the jury could follow without any technical background. Only after locking in those definitions did he pivot to whether the blood collection procedures in this case met those standards.

This approach solves a problem Chuck himself identified: juries sometimes don't connect the technical admissions to the verdict. By front-loading plain-language definitions and getting the expert to endorse each one, the attorney gives the jury a framework they can apply on their own. When the expert later admits that improper procedures could make results "inaccurate," the jury already knows — because the expert told them — that inaccurate means wrong, untrustworthy, and unreliable. The definitions do the closing argument work before the closing argument even begins.

Three Categories of Expert Witnesses and How to Cross Each One Differently

Mark Choate offered a framework for approaching expert witnesses that applies across every practice area. He breaks experts into three types. The first is the expert who isn't actually qualified to testify on the topics they're addressing — these are vulnerable on knowledge and credentials. The second is the expert who has become an advocate for the side that hired them, reaching beyond their expertise to help make the case — these are vulnerable on objectivity. The third is the expert who genuinely knows their material and stays within their lane — and with those, the best available strategy is often limited to establishing financial bias through their fees and repeat-hire patterns.

Knowing which type of expert you're facing determines everything about your cross. Chuck's approach — going deep on technical procedures — works best against the first two types, where the attorney can match or exceed the expert's knowledge. Bruce's approach — systematically establishing everything the expert didn't know and didn't personally verify — works especially well against the third type, where you can't beat the expert on substance but can undermine the foundation their opinion rests on. The episode demonstrated all three strategies against the same witness, giving attorneys a playbook for deciding which approach fits their case.

How to Dismantle an Expert Witness by Cataloging Everything They Don't Know and Didn't Do

Bruce Ringstrom's cross of Dr. Ebers opened by establishing a devastating pattern: every question revealed something the expert didn't know or didn't personally verify. She didn't retrieve the sample herself. She had no control over the chain of custody. She wasn't even the person who conducted the lab analysis — she was testifying about someone else's work. She didn't know the phlebotomist's name. She didn't know when the sample was transferred to police. She didn't know when it reached the lab. She didn't know whether it was refrigerated. Each answer chipped away at her authority until, as Chuck Rathbun put it afterward, "she's a little less the paragon of knowledge than when she sat down."

Mark Choate identified the moment this approach became most powerful: when Bruce established that the expert had no hands-on involvement with any part of the process. At that point, the expert's testimony reduced to a single claim — the number on the lab report is accurate — supported by nothing more than an assumption that everyone else in the chain did their job correctly. As Mark noted, "She sort of disappeared right there." For any attorney facing a testifying expert who reviewed records but wasn't personally involved, this pattern is directly transferable: catalog the gaps between what the expert claims to know and what they can actually verify from personal knowledge.

Why a Plaintiff's Attorney Crossing a Criminal Case Witness Reveals Angles Specialists Miss

One of the most instructive dynamics in this episode came from having Mark Choate — a plaintiff's personal injury attorney — cross a witness in a criminal DUI case alongside two criminal defense specialists. Mark immediately went somewhere neither Chuck nor Bruce had prioritized: he attacked the weakness of the state's overall case before touching the blood test. He established that driving five miles over the speed limit isn't evidence of impairment, that no field sobriety testing was ever conducted, and that the entire prosecution therefore rested on a single blood draw. By the time he got to the blood test itself, he'd already framed it as the state's only evidence — making any flaw in that test existential rather than incremental.

Bruce Ringstrom noted afterward that this approach reflected a plaintiff's lawyer's instinct to build cases rather than just tear them down. Mark was constructing a narrative — the driving was normal, the testing was skipped, and the one test they did run had problems — rather than attacking the expert in isolation. Chuck Rathbun said he'd never thought to attack the speeding basis and planned to add it to his trial notebook. The lesson for any attorney is that bringing a fresh perspective from outside your specialty can surface angles that familiarity has made invisible.

How to Use the Witness's Own Words Against Them When They Start Speculating Beyond the Evidence

One of the most revealing moments came during Mark Choate's cross when he walked Dr. Ebers through the math: four Miller Lites consumed over three hours by a 185-pound male, tested roughly four hours after drinking began, should produce a blood alcohol level around 0.05 — well below the reported 0.14. When confronted with this gap, Dr. Ebers started speculating: the defendant could have had shots, his friends could have bought him additional drinks, he might have consumed far more than the receipt showed. She introduced the term "casual drinker" to explain why alcohol might metabolize more slowly in his system — a term none of the attorneys had encountered in toxicology.

Mark didn't need to label this as speculation — the jury could hear it for themselves. An expert witness whose job is to analyze scientific evidence was inventing scenarios to explain away a mathematical contradiction. Chuck Rathbun caught it from off-camera and noted that this was the moment the expert crossed from scientist to advocate: "She's making stuff up to support the conviction." The lesson is that sometimes the most effective cross-examination move is to create a factual tension the expert can't resolve without stepping outside their expertise — and then let the jury watch them do it.

How Looping the Phrase "Best Practices" Can Reframe an Expert's Entire Testimony

Bruce Ringstrom's repeated use of the phrase "best practices" throughout his cross became a quiet but persistent theme that reframed every answer Dr. Ebers gave. Each time she tried to defend a procedural shortcut or fill a knowledge gap, Bruce brought the conversation back to best practices — what should have been done versus what was actually done. Chuck Rathbun flagged it in the debrief as one of his favorite techniques from the episode: "You just kept bringing it back. Best practices would have been, best practices would have been." The repetition created a standard that the expert herself endorsed, and then every deviation from that standard became a concession she couldn't walk back.

The technique works because it borrows the expert's own professional vocabulary. No toxicologist is going to argue against best practices — that would undermine their credibility. But once they've agreed that best practices require certain steps, every step that wasn't followed becomes a problem they own. Bruce combined this with his "things she doesn't know" chapter to devastating effect: you endorse best practices, and yet you can't tell me whether those practices were followed in this case because you weren't there, you didn't run the test, and you don't know the chain of custody. The expert's authority becomes the instrument of her own undoing.

In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa welcome personal injury trial attorneys Susie Injijian and Jon Choate, along with personal injury and criminal defense attorney Russell Goodrow.

Watch as these 3 attorneys cross-examine Steve, who portrays an expert radiologist on behalf of the defense. They’ll challenge his opinion that only soft tissue injuries and pre-existing conditions—not lingering effects from MTBI—are present in the plaintiff.

What’s covered in this episode:

1. Techniques for a 'yes, and' cross-examination that questions expert conclusions
2. How to score points against an expert who protests too much
3. The power of improvised loops to solidify words and concepts for the jury
4. How to leverage the power of what an expert doesn’t know
5. The offensive word that will make an expert witness bristle (even if it’s the truth)

Time Stamps

00:00 What’s Cross Lab?

3:18 How to start formulating a cross

6:22 Case Description: Sandra Little v. Grant School District & Gary Carpenter

9:20 Jon Choate’s cross: Word choice that paints a clear picture for the jury

19:35 How to stay out of an argument with the witness

29:40 Russell Goodrow’s cross: Loops to control a witness and an easy physical demonstrative

40:55 What to do when a witness that won’t answer the question

49:50 Susie Injijan’s cross: Techniques for being an effective teacher/guide for the jury

1:00:47 The word that no expert will want to hear (because it’s sooo good for you)

1:04:48 Your biggest weapon in the courtroom

1:09:44 Top takeaways of you had to cross a witness like this

Would you like to be a guest or have an idea for a future episode, reach out to us here!

Cross Lab is powered by LawPods.

Get FREE narrative building resources for the courtroom here!

Key Insights from This Episode

How to Use a Defense Expert to Retell the Violence of the Accident for the Jury

John Choate's cross of defense radiologist Dr. Benjamin Williams barely touched radiology at all — and that was entirely by design. Instead, he used the expert as a vehicle to put the violence of the collision back in front of the jury: a full-size school bus weighing approximately 25,000 pounds, traveling at 30 miles per hour with no brakes applied, crushing the rear quarter of an SUV and propelling it 61 feet while the plaintiff was halfway inside it. The expert tried to distance himself — "that's not germane to my expertise" — but John didn't need the expert to agree with his conclusions. He just needed the expert to confirm the facts, which he did, one by one.

Suzy Injijian noted afterward that the expert's indifference to those facts was itself the point. The more the expert confirmed devastating details with a dismissive tone — "yes, that sounds about right" — the more the jury could see that this highly paid witness didn't care about what happened to Ms. Little. As Suzy put it, the expert looked "uninterested and uninteresting." The technique works because it doesn't require the attorney to attack the expert. The jury watches a $800-an-hour witness shrug at a 25,000-pound bus collision, and they draw their own conclusions about whose side that expert is really on.

How Looping a Witness's Own Words Pulls Them Back Under Your Control Without Confrontation

Russ Goodrow's cross demonstrated one of the most consistent applications of looping across the entire episode. Every time Dr. Williams went off on a tangent — explaining his process, defending his impartiality, volunteering context — Russ would grab a word or phrase from the monologue and use it to redirect back to his original question. The expert would say "I review what's on the film and report my findings," and Russ would come back with "It's paramount for you what you find on the films." The expert's own language became the leash that kept pulling him back.

John Choate described the effect from the outside: it felt like watching something smash against a strong tree. The expert was wriggling and fighting, but Russ was immovable. Steve confirmed from the witness chair that this was deeply irritating — he hated being pulled back by his own words — but there was nothing to fight because every loop was factually accurate. The technique also signals something important to the jury: the attorney is listening to every word and won't let the witness talk their way out of a question. Over time, it makes the expert's long answers feel evasive rather than authoritative, because the jury notices the attorney keeps having to re-ask the same simple question.

How to Limit a Defense Expert's Credibility by Defining the Narrow Scope of What They Actually Do

Suzy Injijian's cross took a fundamentally different approach from John's and Russ's. Rather than confronting the expert on the accident facts or probing for bias, she methodically boxed Dr. Williams into the narrowest possible version of his role. He's a diagnostic neuroradiologist — she defined it immediately so the jury understood. He reads scans. He doesn't diagnose patients. He wasn't given clinical notes. He didn't ask for the plaintiff's deposition. He never met Ms. Little. He didn't review symptom reports, medical history, or any other diagnostic testing. By the time Suzy was done, the expert who had presented himself as authoritative was reduced to a person who looks at pictures and reports what he sees on them — nothing more.

John Choate observed that Suzy built this so naturally that the jury would have seen the conclusion coming before she stated it: this expert can speak to one narrow slice of the diagnostic picture, and there's an entire universe of clinical information he never looked at. Steve noted from the witness chair that he was frustrated because every time he tried to expand his role — explaining how he'd report findings just like a treating physician would — Suzy would loop it back and pin him down. The word "assignment" was particularly effective: it reframed the expert's participation from professional opinion to a task given to him by a defense lawyer, which is exactly how the jury should see it.

Why Starting a Cross-Examination with How You Want the Jury to Feel at the End Changes Everything

Before any cross began, Suzy Injijian described her starting point: "How do I want the jury or the fact finder to respond to this witness? What is the feeling I want to generate through this cross-examination when it's ended?" Russ Goodrow echoed this — he starts big and works to get it smaller, organizing around stories, chapters, and the emotions within those chapters. This approach stands in contrast to what John Choate identified as the most common trap: finding a factual error the expert made and going after it like a dog with a bone, even when that error won't contribute to the feeling the jury needs to walk away with.

The distinction matters because all three attorneys faced the same witness and none of them expected to land a knockout blow. Dr. Williams was experienced, polished, and disciplined — exactly the kind of expert who has testified 800 times and knows how to hold his ground. The goal was never to destroy him. It was to leave the jury with a specific feeling: that this expert didn't care about Ms. Little, that his role was narrow and purchased, and that his testimony shouldn't carry much weight. Each attorney achieved a different version of that feeling through entirely different chapters — and that's the point. The feeling drives the structure, not the other way around.

How a Criminal Defense Attorney's Instinct for Cross-Examination Translates to Plaintiff's Civil Work

One of the episode's most interesting dynamics came from Russ Goodrow, who started his career doing criminal defense cross-examinations before moving into plaintiff's personal injury work. His approach reflected that training: he was comfortable with silence, unflappable when the witness went off script, and focused on control rather than confrontation. John Choate described Russ as having a "groundedness" — an immovable quality that made the expert's resistance look like fighting for no reason.

The criminal defense instinct showed most clearly in how Russ handled the witness volunteering information. When Dr. Williams mentioned he'd found a bone chip fracture that the plaintiff's own treating physicians had missed, Russ didn't panic or change course. He looped it: "So you found something that Ms. Little's treating physicians missed." Then he pivoted to framing the expert as a fact-checker — a characterization the expert bristled at but couldn't fully escape. Suzy Injijian called it brilliant because it gave the jury a framework for understanding the expert's role: he's here to second-guess the people who actually treated Ms. Little. That reframing came from a criminal defense attorney's comfort with taking whatever the witness gives you and turning it into your narrative.

Why the Most Effective Cross-Examinations Make the Jury Feel Like They're Solving the Puzzle Themselves

A theme that ran through all three debriefs — and connected to the broader philosophy Steve and Olivia teach — is that the best cross-examinations make the fact-finder feel like they're figuring out the story rather than being told the conclusion. John Choate described building his butcher-paper checklist of crash facts so the jury could see the accumulation. Suzy Injijian built her scope-narrowing questions so methodically that John said the jury would have been able to figure out where she was going — and that's the most fun for the jury, because it feels like watching a mystery unfold. Russ Goodrow's looping created a rhythm where the jury could hear the same question asked three times and the witness dodge it three times, letting them conclude on their own that the expert was being evasive.

Steve made the point explicitly during the debrief: curiosity is the superpower. The attorneys who are most effective in cross aren't the ones who announce their conclusions — they're the ones who stay curious, follow the thread, and trust their audience to arrive at the destination. As Olivia noted, mock jury feedback consistently shows that jurors get bored when an attorney beats a point to death. The attorneys who let the jury solve the puzzle — who lay out the breadcrumbs and then step back — are the ones who earn the verdict.