Ready, Set, TRIAL!
By Amy Coppola
When I became a legal intern at the Law Clinic on January 9, 2007, I was assigned five transfer cases. I quickly learned that one case in which I was co-counsel with Maria Nieto would take a good amount of time. That case involved a contested adoption, where our client, the maternal grandmother, was seeking to adopt her great-grandson over her granddaughter's objection. Under the law, we had the burden of proving that the mother's consent was unnecessary because of her conduct.
The previous legal intern had started discovery, with interrogatories and two motions to produce documents. Because the opposing party did not produce all the documents, we had to file a motion to compel. The pretrial hearing originally set for February 5 became a hearing on the motion to compel. At this hearing we asked the judge to grant a continuance to allow us time to adequately review the discovery materials that we finally obtained and to depose the mother. Our hopes for more time to prepare were dashed when the judge decided that he would not continue this trial and that he did not think a deposition of the mother of the child was necessary. This meant that Maria and I had to get ready for a trial in three weeks on February 27, with gaps in our knowledge of what the other side was going to say at trial.
We had an actual pretrial hearing a week before trial where we narrowed down the witnesses who would be testifying and the documents that each party would be offering into evidence. Maria and I had six witnesses, including two expert witnesses. The opposing side had three witnesses, including the mother of the child, whom we decided to call as a hostile witness. Therefore, Maria and I needed to split up the nine witnesses and the introduction of evidence at trial. We also need to think about what we would ask on direct and cross for each witness and if we would need to redirect or rebut evidence.
Neither of us had taken Trial Advocacy, and it was a lot to learn in such a short amount of time, but our supervisor, Professor Sheila Reynolds, really helped us get through our anxiety about going to trial. I was in charge of examination of the mother of the child, the two expert witnesses, and cross on one of the opposing side's witnesses. I was also in charge of offering the documents that we wanted to have as evidence at the trial. Professor Reynolds helped us narrow our questions for direct and cross and led us through a few simulations so that we could be ready with objections, changes to questions, and asking follow up questions when necessary. We learned how to offer evidence at trial and how to respond to objections that opposing counsel might have. It was a lot of work, but I really felt prepared by the time the trial rolled around.
The day of trial was very long. We started at 8:30 that morning and we didn't end until 5:00 that evening. I know that I could have done better in certain areas, but for the most part, Professor Reynolds had really prepared us for what was going to happen and what we needed to do to be ready for trial. I also thought that the judge was going to be hard on us as legal interns. I thought that he would expect us to get everything right, but the judge was actually quite patient with us and in some ways mentored us for what we needed to do in unexpected situations. I was relieved that I did not have to get everything perfect the first time around.
Overall, even though I felt a little overwhelmed by the experience, it was a really good experience to have. Most new attorneys fear the unknown of trial and Maria and I were able to experience it in law school. I think it has helped me with the rest of my cases, knowing that trial is not as bad as it seems. At press time, we are still awaiting the judge's decision.
