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.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small shares how building genuine trust with a witness can make or break a case, recounting his extraordinary trip to Italy to meet Domenic D'Alessandro in the Frank Wallen corruption investigation. What began as a long-shot effort — navigating approvals from U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and and U.S. Department of State, coordinating with the IRS and overcoming internal skepticism — turned into a lesson in human connection. Over a shared meal and conversation, plus more than a few glasses of wine, Mr. Small and Mr. D'Alessandro developed mutual respect and forged a bond that led to Mr. D'Alessandro's voluntary return to the U.S., guilty plea and critical testimony. The story underscores a central tenet in trial preparation: You cannot extract the truth from strangers on a park bench; you must invest the time to create rapport and reliability with witnesses, because trust, not pressure, opens the door to honest testimony.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small explores the complexity of federal corruption cases. He highlights a matter he handled as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office Public Corruption Unit: a case in Brockton, Massachusetts, in which the IRS uncovered corrupt relationships between contractors and Frank Wallen, the city's superintendent of sewers and then-commissioner of public works. Mr. Small shares insights into how the case arose, what work his team focused on and why it was so difficult to prosecute.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small explains why simplifying a complex case is essential to persuading a jury. Recalling the federal prosecution of U.S. budget director Bert Lance, Mr. Small describes how large investigations can produce lengthy indictments that confuse rather than convince, and emphasizes that focusing on clear, provable charges can strengthen a case. He outlines the risks of overcomplication and the importance of telling a straightforward story that a juror can follow.

In the second part of this special guest episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small is once again joined by Partner Eric Alexander, who leads the firm's Product Liability – Life Sciences Team. This episode's conversation focuses on product liability trials and how they differ from other types of litigation, as well as recent shifts in juror attitudes and the effects on expert witness selection and preparation. Mr. Small shares an anecdote to emphasize that getting the jury to like you isn't just a part of trial, it's the only part of trial. For his part, Mr. Alexander suggests that changes in juror dynamics were likely accelerated by COVID-19 and the associated shutdowns. The attorneys agree that a strong expert nowadays is defined more by the ability to speak "juror's English" than by degrees or professional experience. The dialogue offers a behind-the-scenes look into the world of product liability litigation and the factors that can determine success in the courtroom.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer’s Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small describes the unnatural environment of the courtroom and the importance of preparing witnesses for the off-putting rhythm of testimony that he summarizes as "question, pause, answer, stop." In the corruption case United States v. Bert Lance, because the defense sought to call numerous character witnesses, the judge limited counsel to four legalistic questions. The most notable witness, Miss Lillian, the elderly mother of then-President Jimmy Carter, had known Lance his whole life and could have played a key role in his defense. However, she was not prepared for the unusual phrasing of the questions and, after an 18-hour flight to get to court, concluded her testimony in about two and a half minutes. Mr. Small reminds the listeners that every witness is Miss Lillian and must be prepared accordingly.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer’s Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small discusses the value of observing and learning from experienced colleagues, both professionally and socially. He reflects on one of his first significant cases as a federal prosecutor, when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) secured a grand jury indictment in Atlanta against Bert Lance, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget, and three associates on charges that they conspired to violate U.S. banking laws to obtain millions of dollars in loans. Mr. Small joined the DOJ team led by Ed Tomko and Marvin Loewy and learned from watching them and the opposing counsel in action.