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.

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.