![handle is hein.journals/stet38 and id is 1 raw text is: STETSON LAW REVIEW
VOLUME 38 FALL 2008 NUMBER 1
CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN ADVOCACY SYMPOSIUM
ARTICLES
From Voyeur to Lawyer: Vicarious Learning
and the Transformational Advocacy Critique Christopher W. Behan 1
This Article describes existing pedagogical methods in trial advocacy
and proposes a transformational critique to supplement those
methods. The Author first analyzes and provides examples of three
common trial advocacy critiquing methods. First, the Author describes
the systematic, disciplined method developed through the National
Institute of Trial Advocacy. Next, the Author explains the video
performance review method and its focus on the student's self-
awareness. Finally, the Author assesses student-centered critiques in
the form of professor or peer-reviewed performances. After presenting
the positive and negative pedagogical aspects of each of these methods,
the Author outlines the transformational critique, which aims to
supplement the positive parts of existing methods and improve upon
shortcomings. This critique emphasizes the importance of ignoring time
constraints and permitting each student to complete an error-free
performance. In support of this method, the Author explores the concept
of vicarious learning, which extols the benefits of one student observing
another student's learning process. Finally, the Author provides some
advice to incorporate the transformational critique into existing
pedagogical frameworks.
No Second Chances: Best Practices for Expert Practice Sandra F. Gavin 41
Attorneys who prefer to save their best evidence for trial run the risk of
losing their cases outright at the summary judgment stage if they fail to
Daubert-proof their expert witnesses at the pretrial admissibility
hearing. As the Author explains in this Article, appellate courts are
increasingly willing to affirm summary judgment against proponents of
expert testimony if the attorney-proponent does not persuade the trial
judge that the proposed expert testimony satisfies the criteria
established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert I and II in 1993 and
1995, respectively. As the Author explains, the number of admissibility
challenges has sharply increased since Daubert and trial courts
increasingly take notice of other courts' prior expert rulings. Lawyers
are on notice to address the foundational reliability factors [set forth in
Daubert] or ignore them at their peril. This Article describes the
enhanced importance of attorney-expert pretrial conferences and the
necessity of avoiding bare-bones disclosures that may have sufficed
pre-Daubert. This Article reviews cases over the past fifteen years in
the areas of products liability, toxic torts, medical causation, and other
areas. The Author concludes that attorneys should not expect a second
chance to present expert evidence should their first try fail.
Stepping Up to the Podium with Confidence:
A Primer for Law Students on Preparing and
Delivering an Appellate Oral Argument James D. Dimitri 75
This Article addresses many of the issues faced by novice law students
when presenting their oral arguments in law school as well as moot](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/stet38&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most