In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small delves deeper into the naval architect negligence case introduced in the previous episode. During the trial, the two experts disagreed, resulting in a credibility contest. Mr. Small shares the strategy he used to successfully cross-examine the other side's expert witness. In technical cases such as this one, it is your responsibility as the trial lawyer to learn the specifics of the case. By mastering the technical details himself, rather than relying solely on his team and client, Mr. Small was able to go toe-to-toe with the plaintiff's expert during cross-examination, a key factor in ultimately winning the case.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small introduces a new case that illustrates a new strategy for trial. Naval architect Jack Gilbert was accused of selling a boat with stability issues and was sued by the owner of the 93-foot fishing vessel for negligence in federal court in Portland, Maine. Mr. Small provides an overview of the case and the technical details underlying it before describing the central role his "core themes" played at trial as he presented his arguments before the jury.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small continues the discussion of U.S. v. Rendle and explains why reading the room matters in court. Mr. Small shows how judges, juries and the pace of a trial should guide your choices across all aspects of the proceeding, not just your arguments. He shares a Boston case where a defense lawyer's approach at sentencing hurt the client, and a moment in U.S. v. Rendle when a lengthy cross-examination allowed the government to respond with a strong redirect. This episode offers clear lessons on timing, tone, selecting the right witness, when to object and how courtroom dynamics can lead to plea deals.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small uses the white-collar corruption case of United States v. Rendle and his experience before the famously pro-defense Judge Joseph Tauro to explore the central role of respect in the courtroom. Drawing on stories from his time as a federal prosecutor, Mr. Small explains how rigorous preparation and sound judgment – especially knowing when to push hard and when to "move on" – helped him earn the respect of a judge many colleagues feared. Mr. Small underscores why neither constant combativeness nor habitual capitulation works, how to "pick your battles" in motions and arguments, and why genuine respect must extend beyond the bench to clerks, court staff and everyone in the courthouse.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small underscores the importance of understanding the media as a trial attorney. He recounts lessons learned from a high-profile government corruption case in Boston, where he interacted with reporters from two competing newspapers. As he explains, he inadvertently gave an exclusive quote to one of the journalists, blindsiding and angering the other news outlet. Mr. Small's message: A trial attorney's job is to address the court and inform the press, without favoring one publication over another.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small recounts attempting to prosecute a New England mob boss and the challenge of filing a complex case before the statute of limitations expired. Mr. Small explains how the case moved between Miami and Providence, how venue and timing decisions shaped strategy and why the trial judge ultimately dismissed the case despite a grand jury indictment. He highlights lessons on venue, audience and the importance of aligning the forum with the story you need to tell.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small looks back on his experience prosecuting the notorious New England mob boss Raymond Patriarca — or lack thereof. As a 73-year-old man who had spent more than 30 years as the head of a criminal organization, it was not difficult for Patriarca to find a doctor to declare him medically unfit for trial. Mr. Small, needing a doctor of his own to keep the mob boss included in the trial, quickly discovered that Patriarca's reputation preceded him, and shares the difficulties he faced in getting Patriarca into the courtroom.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small discusses the opportunities and challenges of "climbing the ladder" in a corruption case. This approach starts with securing a defendant willing to testify against their superiors and then working to uncover what additional crimes or targets they can identify. He illustrates this strategy with the extortion case against Ted Anzalone, in which George Collatos, a Boston city employee, served as a key witness. Collatos was arrested for extorting cash from a building contractor. After he pleaded guilty, Mr. Small and his team brought him before the grand jury to ask about illegal fundraising and other unlawful activities in hopes of obtaining additional information. Eventually, Collatos revealed facts about Anzalone's activities, but it was not smooth sailing. Mr. Small explains why "climbing the ladder" proved to be difficult in this case and how it ultimately ended in Anzalone's acquittal.