NOTE FROM PAPA DON: Many of you know that for the last five weeks I’ve been in Boston on a trial with David Hoey, Dean of the Keenan Ball College. No offer against a verdict of $6.6 million. Lots of lessons learned but the sad news is that the Black Hats had much of the Reptile© secret sauce from seminars, the blog, and the College. At this point we cannot share anything about the trial until this matter is concluded, which, hopefully, will be soon. We lost every motion in the trial such that the Black Hats have —0— to appeal.
By DON KEENAN—Over the course of teaching the Intro: “Welcome to the Revolution,” I usually include a section on how to use repentance in your case.
Recently, I saw an exchange on one of the listservs regarding the use of repentance that was wrong, and I asked that my blog on repentance be posted on the listserv to eliminate confusion. Much to my surprise, I discovered that I have not written a blog on repentance and, therefore, I will do so now, as follows:
Repentance is extremely important to the Reptile© because true repentance can be an admission by the defendant of wrongdoing and the defendant’s making it right. Therefore, the danger ends. However, given the tsunami of stipulated cases, it is necessary to examine why the stipulated case is not true repentance.
There’s no question that the motivating factor of the Black Hats in admitting liability is to curry favor with a jury and hopefully receive some sympathy such that the verdict is greatly reduced. However, simply admitting liability does not accomplish true repentance. The best way to explain why repentance is not accomplished is covered in the following verbatim portion of my closing argument, as follows:
“Ladies and Gentlemen, whether you believe scripture is the inspired word of God or whether it is the work of man, which carries with it some mighty powerful statements; I think we all agree that it outlines a good set of rules to live by. So, without trying to show religion one way or the other, I simply ask you to consider the many hundreds-of-years-old concept known as repentance. Y’all understand what repentance is—it’s three steps:
- Accepting your failure and/or transgression
- Taking full responsibility
And the last step, ladies and gentlemen:
- Making it right
And you have to have all three of these; otherwise, it’s not a true repentance.”
Now, examine what happened in this Closing argument:
“For two and a half years, the defendant has denied responsibility—the second part of repentance. Then, all of a sudden, 11 days before trial, he/she has admitted responsibility; but is this true repentance? Well, true repentance would mean that the defendant has made their wrong right. The situation wouldn’t require a jury; the defendant would have made it right. But instead, we have fake repentance.
We have no closure here. We have no safety here. And it now becomes your responsibility, as a juror, to bring about closure—to bring about closure for the plaintiff’s family, by speaking justice making it right, and also, frankly, to bring closure to the defense, because they need to understand repentance so that they, too, can move on in their life. Make no mistake about it—until this is made right, there is no repentance. The plaintiff is not safe; no one is safe until we get community closure on this. That’s what you are going to do in your verdict.”
This closing argument segment is extremely important in exposing the Black Hats’ failed attempt to get sympathy when they have not “made it right”. In my experience and the many that have used my words, the effect on the jury is the creation of anger toward the Black Hats’ attempt to fool the jury and pull the wool over their eyes. Like in this instance, in cases where the Black Hats hope that the jury will cut them a break but the reverse comes true, a larger verdict often results.
Understand fully the three steps to full repentance. When you speak honest words, most jurors hearken back to Sunday school and to the ways they teach their children about true repentance. If your little boy knocks a baseball through the neighbor’s window, it’s not enough for your son to simply admit, “I did it and I’m sorry.”—Full repentance would require your son to pay to get the window fixed.
Now, there are many instances where you can use repentance powerfully. If the defendant has cried tears on the witness stand about what they have done, this can enamor sympathy with the jury. A repentance argument will stop sympathy in its tracks and expose the defense tactic for what it is—a trick.
BOTTOM LINE: understand that repentance is purely Reptilian© and, if completed, will ensure that no danger exists. False or incomplete repentance means danger is still present and the defendant will suffer the jurors’ anger at an attempt to trick them.