Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Author Archives: Paul Mark Sandler

The story of a prosecutor who won the case but lost his life (access required)

Civil wars raged in England during the mid-1600s, caused by the uprising of the people against  the tyrannical rule of King Charles I. He infuriated the Puritans, who opposed the close resemblance of the English Church to Catholicism. He often ...

Read More »

Lawyers and safeguarding ‘access to justice’ (access required)

Access to justice is a broad term with different interpretations. Take, for example, the Maryland Attorney General’s Access to Justice Task Force, which, this past January, released excellent and important recommendations that targeted five goals to achieving access to justice: ...

Read More »

Learning the secrets of persuasion (access required)

Many of us spend significant time in our daily lives attempting to convince others to “see it our way.” Often these efforts are in a courtroom, boardroom, office, or with family and friends. The secret to succeeding in these persuasive ...

Read More »

Did Clarence Darrow bribe those jurors? (access required)

It appears that this remarkable trial lawyer, noted for his mesmerizing eloquence in court and for defending controversial individuals, may have bribed two prospective jurors in the so-called McNamara case. Clarence Darrow denied this officially, but on occasion inferred the ...

Read More »

A precursor of Miranda v. Arizona (access required)

The growth of our common law evolves on a case-by-case basis, beginning in the Middle Ages during the time of Henry II in the 1160s.  The king created the King’s Bench, a circuit of judges known as the Assizes. They ...

Read More »

Opening statements: A perspective (access required)

The theoretical purpose of the opening statement is to present to the judge or jury the evidence you plan to present during the trial. All this, but without arguing. Argument is reserved for closing, after the evidence has been presented ...

Read More »

These Maryland Rules need changes (access required)

If you were presenting expert testimony pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702 before the landmark opinion Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), you were proceeding under the Frye-Reed standard for admissibility of scientific evidence. (The opinion must be generally accepted ...

Read More »

A perspective on direct examination (access required)

Direct examination is the heart of the trial. It is also your greatest challenge. You must avoid leading questions used in cross-examination, and ask open-ended questions, meaning that unlike other parts of the trial, you have no control. The interchange ...

Read More »