In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small continues the discussion of U.S. v. Rendle and explains why reading the room matters in court. Mr. Small shows how judges, juries and the pace of a trial should guide your choices across all aspects of the proceeding, not just your arguments. He shares a Boston case where a defense lawyer's approach at sentencing hurt the client, and a moment in U.S. v. Rendle when a lengthy cross-examination allowed the government to respond with a strong redirect. This episode offers clear lessons on timing, tone, selecting the right witness, when to object and how courtroom dynamics can lead to plea deals.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small uses the white-collar corruption case of United States v. Rendle and his experience before the famously pro-defense Judge Joseph Tauro to explore the central role of respect in the courtroom. Drawing on stories from his time as a federal prosecutor, Mr. Small explains how rigorous preparation and sound judgment – especially knowing when to push hard and when to "move on" – helped him earn the respect of a judge many colleagues feared. Mr. Small underscores why neither constant combativeness nor habitual capitulation works, how to "pick your battles" in motions and arguments, and why genuine respect must extend beyond the bench to clerks, court staff and everyone in the courthouse.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small underscores the importance of understanding the media as a trial attorney. He recounts lessons learned from a high-profile government corruption case in Boston, where he interacted with reporters from two competing newspapers. As he explains, he inadvertently gave an exclusive quote to one of the journalists, blindsiding and angering the other news outlet. Mr. Small's message: A trial attorney's job is to address the court and inform the press, without favoring one publication over another.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small recounts attempting to prosecute a New England mob boss and the challenge of filing a complex case before the statute of limitations expired. Mr. Small explains how the case moved between Miami and Providence, how venue and timing decisions shaped strategy and why the trial judge ultimately dismissed the case despite a grand jury indictment. He highlights lessons on venue, audience and the importance of aligning the forum with the story you need to tell.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small looks back on his experience prosecuting the notorious New England mob boss Raymond Patriarca — or lack thereof. As a 73-year-old man who had spent more than 30 years as the head of a criminal organization, it was not difficult for Patriarca to find a doctor to declare him medically unfit for trial. Mr. Small, needing a doctor of his own to keep the mob boss included in the trial, quickly discovered that Patriarca's reputation preceded him, and shares the difficulties he faced in getting Patriarca into the courtroom.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small discusses the opportunities and challenges of "climbing the ladder" in a corruption case. This approach starts with securing a defendant willing to testify against their superiors and then working to uncover what additional crimes or targets they can identify. He illustrates this strategy with the extortion case against Ted Anzalone, in which George Collatos, a Boston city employee, served as a key witness. Collatos was arrested for extorting cash from a building contractor. After he pleaded guilty, Mr. Small and his team brought him before the grand jury to ask about illegal fundraising and other unlawful activities in hopes of obtaining additional information. Eventually, Collatos revealed facts about Anzalone's activities, but it was not smooth sailing. Mr. Small explains why "climbing the ladder" proved to be difficult in this case and how it ultimately ended in Anzalone's acquittal.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small makes the case for "show and tell" in the courtroom. As he contends, jurors do not learn best by listening alone, so powerful demonstratives are essential, especially in complex financial cases. Drawing on the Anzalone money laundering trial, he explains how a simple poster depicting a web tracing $100,000 in cash split into 12 sub‑$10,000 checks clarified the scheme better than words ever could and kept the jury focused on the issues at play. The takeaway: Keep visuals clear, memorable and ever‑present. Ears to listen, eyes to see, hands to hold.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small unpacks the prosecution of Ted Anzalone, a top aide to Boston Mayor Kevin White, through two alleged money laundering schemes: a "birthday gift" check-planting operation that sowed jury confusion and led to acquittal, and a clearer $100,000 cash structuring scheme using sub‑$10,000 cashier's checks to evade bank reporting. Despite a compelling trial win on the structuring count, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding that "the law is the law" and Congress hadn't yet criminalized that type of financial activity. Mr. Small reflects on the limits of prosecutorial creativity, a memorable bench rebuke and how the case ultimately spurred lawmakers to close the loophole – too late for Anzalone, whose conviction was vacated, but paving the way for successful prosecutions thereafter.

In this episode of his "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small emphasizes the importance of providing the jury with all relevant facts to help them discern the truth. At times, however, court decisions can hinder a party's ability to tell the whole story. This was true in the United States v. Anzalone case, which Mr. Small prosecuted. Ted Anzalone was charged with extortion and money laundering, but because both charges involved secret cash transactions, it was difficult to present non-circumstantial evidence to the jury. To make matters worse, the defense counsel persuaded the judge to sever the two charges, making it nearly impossible to corroborate the evidence. This episode highlights the importance of always fighting to tell the full narrative.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small delves into the debate on using interpreters for witnesses in the courtroom. In some instances there is no choice: A witness who cannot understand English requires an interpreter. But when it's a gray area, some lawyers argue that an interpreter diminishes the connection between the witness and the jury. Mr. Small disagrees and offers a humorous anecdote from the corruption case United States v. Wallen, which he prosecuted, to support his pro-interpreter stance. He closes by reminding the listeners that misunderstandings often hurt your case and that interpreters help minimize them for both sides.