We look back every year to count our programs, the people we reach, the faculty we thank, the public service program impact, and the liveliness of our famous publications both bound and digital. I am proud to say, “we are so proud!”
Please, now, click here to enjoy our visual, colorful 2014 Annual Report. I explain how we carry this forward in 2015.
I would love to hear from you. Email me, call my office. There is nothing more important to NITA than you, our faculty, attendees, admirers, supporters and friends. Spread the word in your regions, to your friends!
Karen M. Lockwood, Esq.
President and Executive Director
National Institute for Trial Advocacy
Last Thursday, NITA’s Board of Trustees gathered for its Spring Meeting. Did you know that our twenty-one active Trustees draw from across the country, and work in many of the judicial circuits? They include non-lawyers and lawyers, you may know some of them yourself.
Over the next few months, the Trustees will be developing our next strategic areas of focus. I can promise you that the result will be strategic priorities that leverage our strengths, that increase the magnetic force of NITA’s core and its field of influence, and that draw learners and teachers alike toward our center: NITA’s essential learn-by-doing programs are where advocates master advocacy.
In this past weekend’s meeting, the Board participated in a thrilling review of NITA’s energized and growing operations. They are as excited as we are –and as you are — by our constantly innovating. Thanks to your participation, we also see ever-expanding communications within our network of NITA learners and faculty through NITA’s blog, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Keep it up!
What is most important of all? Word-of-mouth. More, actually. Hand grasping hand. Taking another lawyer by the hand is the sine qua non of coaching: the coach must lead other lawyers to enter their NITA program experience, as their champion. Our Trustees work hard to bring NITA’s unique learning-by-doing method to an ever broader audience.
I hope you too will find five people this month to lead to NITA. Tell each that this is their time to dive into their big NITA course.
In fact, tell them that NITA is hot. That NITA is the place where they claim and come to “own” their particular advocacy talents. With the most focused and influential coaches they will ever have.
Our Board comprises strong leaders in their respective fields – judicial, law practice, law school, and experts in related fields. Active in national legal organizations, they are leaders who challenge each other, who have fun together, and who are passionate about NITA. Through great meetings, this talent coalesces, giving NITA their broad perspective, high energy, and insight.
Write below your appreciation for the insight of our Trustees. Whether or not you know them, tell them how grateful you are for their hard work and enthusiasm.
And stay close to us!
Karen M. Lockwood, Esq.
President and Executive Director
National Institute for Trial Advocacy
Written by guest blogger Judge McGahey
DIVORCE (SINGING AND DANCING INCLUDED)
In recent reviews, I’ve mentioned that Hollywood uses domestic relations issues not just as subjects for drama, but also for comedy. This month we’ll look at three movies about divorce that took the comedy concept one step further – they’re all musical comedies in which divorce plays a central part.
We’ll start with The Gay Divorcee, a Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movie from 1934. The movie is fun to watch, although obviously dated. Its central theme flows out of old-style divorce law. Many of us remember the days before no-fault divorce, when the party seeking the divorce had to have “grounds” to get one. The most common ground was “infidelity” or “adultery.” Even parties who were willing to divorce amicably had to have grounds, which led to phony set-ups with hired “co-respondents.” One party or the other was “discovered” with another man or woman, photographs were taken and the judge had the grounds necessary to grant a divorce. There was very often no real hanky-panky going on, just a sham so an unhappy couple could move on with their lives.
That’s the starting point for The Gay Divorcee. Rogers plays Mimi Glossop, who’s been separated from her husband Cyril for years. She goes to England at the suggestion of her aunt (Alice Brady) and the aunt’s incompetent lawyer (Everett Edward Horton.) The lawyer has set it up for Mimi to be caught in a hotel room with one of those professional co-respondents. Unfortunately, the lawyer forgets to hire the necessary private detectives with the necessary camera.
Astaire plays Guy Holden, an American dancer (shocker!) who’s a friend of the lawyer. He’d met Mimi before and of course fell madly in love with her. He ends up at the same hotel, Mimi mistakes him for the hired co-respondent, Mimi’s estranged husband show up, the lawyer’s butler (Eric Blore) engages in shenanigans, Fred and Ginger dance and sing, and everything comes out fine at the end.
The Gay Divorcee was based on a Broadway play called the The Gay Divorce. Hollywood’s censor, the Hayes Office, made the film’s producers change the name, apparently because while the people going through a divorce could individually enjoy themselves, there was nothing humorous or fun about the process. The Broadway show had music by Cole Porter, all of which was replaced in the movie by other music, with the exception of the classic “Night and Day.”One of those new songs, “The Continental” won an Oscar for Best Original Song, and was used in a twenty-minute dance sequence at the end of the movie. The movie itself was nominated for Best Picture, but lost (deservedly) to It Happened One Night, starring Clark Gable (sans undershirt) and Claudette Colbert.
Next we’ll turn to 1953’s Kiss Me Kate, produced by MGM and starring Howard Keel and Kathryn Grayson as a pair of divorced Broadway stars, Fred Graham and Lilli Vanessi. Fred wants Lilli back, but she isn’t anywhere near to that, at least initially. Fred gets her to co-star with him in a Broadway musical version of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, where their individual personalities fir the roles of Patricio and Katherine. (Believe me, this works out MUCH better than it sounds!) This film is a big-time color movie musical, with terrific songs by Cole Porter and large scale production numbers that were the hallmark of MGM musicals of the time. This movie was, too, was based on a Broadway musical of the same name, making it a movie musical based on a Broadway musical about the production of a Boradway musical. Got that?
There are four really good reasons to watch this movie. The first is Cole Porter’s music, with its clever lyrics, snappy wordplay and more than occasional double meanings. Some of those were cleaned up for the movie, but others weren’t. Second, you get to watch the best female tap dancer in the movies, Ann Miller, do her stuff. She has several featured dances, and will blow you away with the speed and execution of what she does. Watch her go from floor to table to room divider and back in “Too Darn Hot.” Third, you get to watch two great character actors, Keenan Wynn and James Whitmore, portray two gangsters who get involved with the cast of the play in the center of the movie. They perform an hilarious number, “Brush Up Your Shakespeare,” one of the songs that was considerably cleaned up between Boradway and Hollywood; it’s still funny. You also get to see that many of the actors of that era could hoof like pros. Finally, this movie is one of the earliest big-studio films shot in 3-D. Most prints now don’t reflect that, but you can always tell when a 3-D effect was in play: someone is throwing something directly at the audience (a mug, a scarf, a banana, confetti) or cracking a whip, or pointing, etc.
Finally, I present for your consideration 1956’s High Society, with a truly All-star Cast including Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Grace Kelly and Louis Armstrong. (And Cole Porter wrote the music for this movie, too!) I won’t summarize the plot for you, because you know it already: this is a MGM Technicolor musical version of The Philadelphia Story, which I reviewed several months back. It isn’t nearly as good, but it’s still worth watching, to hear Crosby and Sinatra sing Porter’s music, to hear Armstrong play and to watch Kelly in her only musical role and in her last movie before she became Princess Grace of Monaco. The highlight of the movie is the first and only Crosby/Sinatra collaboration, in a song called “Well, Did You Evah!” in which each singer makes obvious references to the singing style of the other that the audience would have immediately caught. It’s great fun watching them go back and forth – and hearing two of the great voices in the history of American popular music combine.
You can find all of these movies in various formats, particularly on TCM. The Gay Divorcee and High Society can be rented on Amazon. If you like singing and dancing, you’ll love these movies. Even if that’s not your first movie watching priority, give these three a try. You’ll enjoy them, I promise!
The NITA community is saddened as we continue to absorb the sudden passing of Donald H. Green on Saturday, April 4, 2015. Don was a NITA Program Director for many years and co-founded the NITA Deposition Program in DC. Along his strong leadership in the Deposition Skills Program and the Expert Witness Program, Don served expertly on the faculty of the Trial Skills Program and in the Advanced Trial Skills Programs in D.C. Don was a firm partner for over 20 years after he served 30 years of service in the Marine Corps and retired as litigation of-counsel in the D.C. office of Pepper Hamilton LLP.
Don’s expertise and dedication to teaching will be greatly missed. We are honored to celebrate and reflect on his life, career and friendship. An outpouring of remembrances were shared from his NITA faculty team who cared for him so dearly.
“I had the pleasure of teaching with Don at NITA for several years. Don as always a consummate gentleman, old school and very talented. When I hear news like this, all I can think of is how much knowledge we have lost as a community, and how fortunate we were and are to be able to say that we learned just a little bit from him.”
-Thomas J. Powell, The Law Offices of Thomas J. Powell
“I speak for hundreds of lawyers when I say that I would not be the lawyer I am today without the mentoring and example of Don Green. He set a high standard for all of us in the teaching of advocacy. His gentle, but highly effective, mastery of the NITA method of feedback and teaching was truly exemplary.
He will be missed, but I think that the best way to remember him is to maintain and build on the excellence that he brought to teaching.”
-Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals
“In addition to being a wonderful attorney and teacher, he was the consummate, classy gentleman. Whenever he observed and critiqued a group I was working with, I learned at least as much from him as did the students. It was a pleasure to work with him these past years. He was a true professional.”
-Rosalind T. Kaplan, Jarve Kaplan Granato LLC
“There is a cadre of Don Green fans where I work. The world is diminished by his passing. He will never be forgotten.”
-Philip J. Katauskas, Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals
“Dan was a wonderful and generous teacher. He was a great mentor to many younger lawyers. He was a great lawyer of the highest integrity, but most of all, he was a great man. He will be sorely missed.”
-Daniel E. Toomey, Duane Morris
“He was a whole person, a rarity. How powerful he was in these traits: authenticity, self-awareness, and comfort in his own skin. He knew that true happiness results not from receiving but from giving, and he gave all the time — to colleagues, to the family he was so humbly devoted to, to the next generation and through NITA, the generations after that.”
-Lawrence Jay Center, Georgetown University Law School
Don’s family wrote a beautiful piece celebrating his productive and interesting life. To view this In Memoriam, please click here. A short obituary was also published about Green in the Washington Post, to read click here.
To honor Don’s memory, The NITA Foundation invites you to make a gift in his honor. If you wish to make a donation in his name please click here and note Don’s name in the comment section. To establish a larger Memorial Fund, please call 303.953.6845 with interest.
Don will be inurned at Arlington National Cemetery beside his wife on a hill overlooking the Potomac River. We will share details of the date and details of his Memorial service once they are set.
Don is missed by all in the NITA community.
Written by guest blogger Karen Steinhauser, trial lawyer and owner of The Law Office of Karen Steinhauser LLC, which focuses primarily in the area of criminal defense and family law.
Why is the public so fascinated with celebrity sports trials? Throughout the years, we have followed the trials of O.J. Simpson, the almost trial of Kobe Bryant, and the trial of Aaron Hernandez. If we the public are so fascinated by it, the question always comes to my mind of whether a defendant’s celebrity status affects jurors, either consciously or unconsciously. In other words, does the celebrity status make the burden of proof higher for prosecutors, or do jurors hold the celebrities to a higher standard than they would a non-celebrity sports figure?
I don’t believe that juror bias towards Simpson resulted in a not guilty verdict. I believe it had to do jury selection and mistakes by the prosecutors.
With the Kobe Bryant case, the issues centered more around the type of case it was than any bias for or against Kobe Bryant.
With the Aaron Hernandez case, it appeared that jurors looked at this case as with any other homicide.
So regardless of whether we have learned anything specific, what we do know is that there is more likely to be a lot of publicity in these types of cases that can impact jurors and witnesses, thereby affecting the outcome of the trial. It is particularly important in jury selection to address the issue of juror bias for or against these athletes during the jury selection process. It is important to remember that the bias that people have when it comes to athletes may not necessarily be one in an athlete’s favor for any number of reasons, including a perception of the athlete making too much money or coming across as too entitled.
Jury questionnaires should be a must when the defendant is a sports figure, including open-ended questions asking whether the particular juror is familiar with the individual and what his feelings are about that person, before and after he became aware of the charges involved. These questions should include whether the juror has ever gone to a game where the defendant was playing, watched it on TV, owns jerseys or other items with the person’s name on it, or has received an autograph from that individual.
On the other hand, to ensure a fair trial for the defendant, it may also be important to include on the questionnaire questions about how the juror feels about sports in general, or this particular sport or athletes, ensuring that jurors don’t end up on the jury who have biases against the sports celebrity defendant.
Besides the questionnaires, it is important during the voir dire process to pay attention to which jurors seems to be spending too much time staring at the defendant as opposed to being involved in the voir dire process. This also may seem to signal a bias either for or against the defendant.
Unfortunately, chances are that we will continue to see sports celebrity figures end up in the criminal justice system because celebrity status certainly doesn’t make someone immune from being in the wrong place at the wrong time, making bad choices, or being targeted for a crime he didn’t commit.