This is a three-session webinar series: Session 1 – August 20 | Session 2 – September 22 | Session 3 – September 25.
This case involves overly aggressive bouncers and their friends becoming violent with a guest in a Las Vegas nightclub. After recklessly escalating a normal conversation into a physical altercation with a non-violent guest, bouncers hand the guest off to violent friends and literally turn the other way as the guest is beaten nearly to death. The violent friends repeatedly punch Mr. Alrabadi in the head as he tries to flee until one of the blows knocks him unconscious. The bouncers' friend then stomps on Mr. Alrabadi's head 6-8 times as he lays motionless inside the doors of the Flamingo Hotel & Casino, fracturing his skull and causing hemorrhages throughout his brain.
No one from Caesars or Chayo made any effort to protect Mr. Alrabadi, nor did they call for medical services as he lay unconscious for several minutes.
Not only did Defendants claim they did nothing wrong, they brought a comparative negligence claim, blaming Mr. Alrabadi for his own injuries. After a 3-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of $56,500,000.96 with liability split 50/50 between Caesars Entertainment and Chayo Tequila Bar, with no comparative fault to Mr. Alrabadi.
Session 3: The Evidence and Closing Arguments that Led to a $56.5M Verdict against Caesars and Chayo
Topics covered in Session 3:
- Order of Proof
- Strategically organizing witnesses matters--start strong, end strong
- Defense opening may REQUIRE calling a defense witness first (but not always)
- Plaintiff's friendly witnesses should be as short as possible (generally)
- Plaintiff experts lay the foundation, they do not win the case
- The power of great experts
- Contrast against defense experts who are less qualified or lacking credibility
- How to survive a less compelling expert
- Plaintiff and friends/family/co-workers must be protected
- Rules for Cross
- Questions should be leading and/or very low risk at all times
- Sometimes a "why" question is powerful ("Do you know why the defense chose to not give you the video/MRI/witness statements/etc.?"), but only if it is very low risk
- Points on cross have 10X the value of points on direct
- Winning through defense corporate and employee witnesses
- Lock down the safety rules
- Lock down the undisputed facts
- The cross should be a presentation, using evidence and video depositions
- Brown bear or black bear?
- Crossing defense experts
- Start with bias and/or lack of credibility
- Lock down favorable undisputed issues and hitchhike
- Expose holes in their foundation and analysis
- End on a powerful note, if possible, but don't drag out unnecessarily searching
- Closing Argument
- BRIEF message of gratitude and empowerment
- Frame around a strong theme that works for you (Lady Justice)
- ALWAYS frame around jury instructions and the verdict form
- Transition from bad behavior to damages
- Explain damages through analogy, move to hard numbers (ask them to write), and then go over the numbers on the verdict form itself
- Close on a strong note that empowers the jury
- Rebuttal Close
- Predict the defense arguments in advance and be ready to crush them
- Mitnik Method + something in the back pocket
- Close on a strong note that empowers the jury