By Michael Peterson, Keenan Law Firm
Richard Hall and Anthony Tantillo return as Reptile© superstars of the Keenan Trial Blog. Richard and Anthony practice plaintiff’s personal injury law at their New York-based firm, William Mattar, P.C., where they specialize in MVC and slip and fall cases.
INTRODUCTION TO THE REPTILE©
It was around 2011 when Richard picked up Don Keenan and David Ball’s seminal book, Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution. The first time Richard used the Reptile© was during jury selection, where he was stunned to see how the Reptile© encouraged lively and stimulating debate amongst the venire. The reactions he saw were more honest and substantive than any of the reactions he had received in his non-Reptile© cases.
For Anthony Tantillo, it was the phrase, “Conscience of the Community,” that persuaded him to join the Reptile©. According to him, conscience of the community encourages the jury to be more than a man or woman in a seat, but an active change agent in their community.
Richard and Anthony have attended every Reptile© seminar offered and are graduates of six Keenan Ball College (KBC) courses, including Rules and Case Selection, Openings and Order of Proof, Damages, MIST, Trial, Mediation and Settlements. Richard and Anthony feel the college is very distinct from the seminars. While the seminars provide a groundswell of new information in a large group setting, the KBC brings a personal touch with one-on-one guidance, hands on participation, and peer driven feedback.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case concerned a motor vehicle collision where the defendant ran a red light and struck the plaintiff head-on, as the plaintiff was traveling down the road. The damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle was substantial and, as a result of the wreck, the plaintiff suffered two lumbar herniations and whiplash symptoms. The plaintiff also underwent a shoulder injection for the pain stemming from the wreck.
The defendant originally claimed that his view of the red light was blocked by a train bridge, but later changed his testimony at trial to say that he ran a green light.
The Defense denied any fault prior to, and throughout, the trial. The insurance company made an offer of $20,000 and a final offer of $50,000 before the trial began. The plaintiff refused both offers.
PRE-TRIAL REPTILE©
Before trial, Richard and Anthony organized many focus groups. They used the focus groups to develop their safety rules and bumper stickers. They learned through the focus groups that they did not need much to prove liability; the participants told them to put away the maps of the intersection, and to simply tell the jury that the defendant ran a red light.
Richard and Anthony also used their focus groups to determine how to convey their client’s damages to the jury. They gave the focus groups a choice of six medical providers they were considering for use during trial; the participants helped them narrow down the list to the plaintiff’s chiropractor and primary care doctor. Richard and Anthony also used focus groups to test their medical terms; the participants told them they would describe the plaintiff’s injury as a “torn disc” versus the more medical/sterile terminology of “disc injury” or “disc herniation.”
Richard and Anthony also focused their system failures. They presented their statistic to the focus group, which claimed that of 1,000 wrecks, 20 percent result from drivers who choose to run red lights. The focus groups were all surprised by the statistic. Richard and Anthony made this statistic their first system failure. Their second came from the defendant’s denial of fault. Richard and Anthony argued that the defendant’s failure to take responsibility was a problem that had reached an epidemic level in our country.
JURY SELECTION
Richard conducted jury selection, which he started by going off-code and empowering the jury. He let the jury know that, if selected, they would have the power to enforce the rules that keep the community safe. Richard did this by obtaining a transcript of the jury room video that plays during initial jury orientation. Richard and Anthony chose the transcript of the jury room video because it allowed them to stay off-code, while providing the jury with an opportunity to hear the conscience of community argument straight from the Court’s own mouth.
Richard read the following:
“Remember that when we serve on juries, as many thousands of us do all the time, all over the country, we are not only guaranteeing the rights of others to a fair trial, but guaranteeing the same rights for ourselves, and our families.”
Richard asked the jury what that statement meant to them. This exercise produced a lively crosstalk on the subject. From there, he went to discuss the safety rules. He asked the venire if they agree that a driver must follow the rules of the road to avoid placing the community in danger. Everyone agreed. A few jury members even had the opinion that there was an epidemic in America of people getting away with a “slap on the wrist.”
Rather than going on-code as lawyers and feeding into their argument, Richard and Anthony allowed the jurors to broadcast their opinions to the group. A few members cited a recent judicial scandal in the local county, while others mentioned the Hillary Clinton scandal as evidence that our society is facing an epidemic of people not taking responsibility. These discussions showed the jury that they have the power and a duty to hold people responsible for their actions.
REPTILING THE CASE
Richard and Anthony heavily relied on their training from the KBC courses and their focus group sessions to steer the direction of this case.
Richard delivered a KBC Opening. He spent a majority of the opening on their No. 1 safety rule; drivers must always stop at red lights. The theme of the case centered on the repentance argument, and Richard and Anthony both observed the jury nodding their heads when they argued that it was important to admit when you do something wrong, ensure it never happens again, and pay for the damages caused.
After the opening, Richard and Anthony followed their order of proof. They let the first responder police officer set the scene of the wreck, confirm their statistic, and explain that running red lights is a problem in the community. Anthony went on to examine the eyewitnesses, who described what they saw and helped polarize the defendant’s testimony. The defendant originally claimed that his view of the traffic light was blocked by a train bridge. When pressed by Richard on the stand, the defendant actually stated he “ran a green light.” Anthony later argued that no one “runs green lights.”
Richard showed the jury that the defendant was willing to say anything to deny responsibility. During discovery, Richard and Anthony learned that the defendant received a speeding ticket from the wreck and was able to get the ticket dismissed. They used this information to show how the defendant was already “cut a break” and argued that conduct rewarded is conduct repeated. They further argued that the criminal justice system had failed the community and they urged the jury not to let that happen again.
Richard and Anthony next examined the plaintiff’s chiropractor and then primary care doctor. The doctors came off as honest and friendly. Richard and Anthony used a simple visual with both doctors, which had been developed during several focus groups. The visual consisted of a two-sided Microsoft Word document. On one side there was a list of times their client went to the doctor before the wreck (a total of five times); on the flip side, there was a list of how often the client went to the doctor after the wreck (which was enormous, taking up the whole page). This visual was particularly powerful, one of the jurors even audibly gasped when they saw it.
The last person to take the stand was the client. Anthony had worked with the client to make sure he knew his major truth, which was, quite simply, that he had a green light and he did nothing wrong.
The client’s major truth coupled with his image as a good, hard-working guy helped take him off-code. Anthony’s direct exam helped show the jury that the plaintiff’s claims were accurate and true. The plaintiff’s willingness to stick with his major truth left the defense weak and ineffective. The plaintiff did not claim specials, lost wages, or future medical bills. According to Richard and Anthony, their exclusion of these special damages helped to bolster the honesty of their client. All that remained was to show the jury the pictures of the damage to the car. The sheer damage from the crash caused one juror in the back row to loudly exclaim, “Wow.”
CLOSING
Anthony began his closing by restating their safety rule. He also reminded the jury that the defense had yet to claim any responsibility for this wreck
The closing focused on deterrence; Anthony asked the jury to send a message to the defendant that the community would no longer tolerate this kind of rule violation. Anthony hammered damages home by using the “pebble and the shoe” argument: He asked the jury to imagine a pebble in a shoe and argued that for one day, having a pebble would be irritating; for two days or more, it would become a problem. At that point, we would all be trying everything possible to get that pebble out of our shoe. Anthony argued that for us, we can simply take off the shoe; however, his client could not, and would never be able to
Finally, Anthony made sure to arm the jury one last time by letting them know that they had the power to stop this from happening in their community by rendering a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
VERDICT
The plaintiff received a $1.17 million verdict, which served as a record breaking verdict in the county for soft tissue damage. Their client was elated. Neither the plaintiff nor especially the defense expected a verdict this large.
CONCLUSION
Richard and Anthony give thanks to Don Keenan for everything he has done to share the Reptile© methodology. According to Richard and Anthony, the KBC faculty is an incredible resource and has been instrumental to their successes; they believe that if you follow the lessons the KBC teaches, the verdicts will come and amazing things will happen. Anthony and Richard believe there is no better proof that the KBC courses truly work than this verdict. Using their case selection criteria, focus groups, safety rules, and polarization, Richard and Anthony were able to overcome the pitfalls of a conservative jury and empower the jurors to act as the conscience of the community.