What do you do when the defense has almost every fact it wants?
Your client is homeless. He has facial tattoos and serious criminal convictions. There is a six-month gap in meaningful treatment. No surgery. No fracture. No medical bills or lost wages in evidence. And the jury is going to watch surveillance video showing him walking and carrying his belongings shortly after the incident.
You try the case you have.
In Max v. City of Richmond, the defense’s final offer was $50,000. After a two-day trial, a Richmond jury unanimously returned a $2 million verdict.
In this webinar, the Gray Broughton trial team will take Trial Lawyers University members inside the case and break down the trial decisions that mattered most.
The focus will not be on the verdict itself. It will be on how to build value when the traditional markers of value are missing.
The team will discuss how they confronted the bad facts head-on, handled the treatment gap and criminal history, used lay witnesses to prove change, developed meaningful non-economic damages without relying on medical specials, and framed the case around what the injury actually took from the client—his independence, identity, dignity, and ability to provide.
Attendees will leave with practical strategies for:
- Trying cases with significant credibility challenges
- Handling treatment gaps and minimal medical care
- Dealing with damaging surveillance evidence
- Proving damages without medical bills or wage loss
- Using lay witnesses to establish before-and-after change
- Finding the human story underneath difficult facts
- Giving jurors a framework for valuing losses that do not come with a price tag
This is a webinar about trying imperfect cases without apologizing for them—and finding value where the defense insists there is none.