Grand Theft Auto Can’t Shake Lindsay Lohan Suit


Back in 2014, actress Lindsay Lohan filed suit against Take Two Interactive, the makers of the popular Grand Theft Auto V video game, alleging that the game improperly used her likeness. As a refresher, Grand Theft Auto features a character named “Lacey Jones” who Lohan alleges is her doppelganger in more ways than one. In the game, the character eludes paparazzi, references the Lohan movie Mean Girls, mentions the West Hollywood hotel where Lohan once lived, and allegedly looks like Lohan. Such similarities Lohan alleges are a violation of her rights under New York civil rights laws. Take-Two moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim, calling the suit “legally meritless” and requesting sanctions due to the obvious publicity grab.

So would this matter turn out just like the actress’s prior unsuccessful lawsuits against Pitbull and E-Trade? Well, no. Not yet, anyway. Last week, New York Supreme Court judge Joan Kennedy denied Take-Two’s motion to dismiss and ordered the company to file an answer to the complaint. Now, we get to look forward to TMZ reports on the discovery process some two years after the suit was filed.

We would like to congratulate Ms. Lohan and her legal team for making it past the treacherous pleading stage.  \But, before Hollywood makes too big a deal out of this, let’s take notice of what this order means. Construing the allegations as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to her, Lohan sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for violation of the civil rights law. The Court has not issued a finding that any of the allegations have merit, only that the matter is deserving of being further litigated. With Lohan’s legal track record, we suppose that may be reason to celebrate.

If this case was the publicity ploy Take-Two suggested, it doesn’t appear to be too successful. We have played Grand Theft Auto many times over the last couple years, but we completely forgot about the lawsuit. We have also come across Lacey Jones plenty of times during the course of our gaming and, surprisingly, not once did we think about Lohan. Jones is way too entertaining.

Gun Manufacturer Liability: Legal Issue or Political Posturing?

If you have been following the presidential campaign, you have undoubtedly heard talk about the issue of gun manufacturer liability. Under the current state of the law, gun manufacturers are immune from suit except under special circumstances. With the number of mass shootings in recent years and the press coverage surrounding the lawsuit filed against Remington by the families of Sandy Hook victims, the issue of gun manufacturer liability has understandably been one of the hot button variety. How a person feels about gun manufacturer liability is often co-mingled with the much broader (and often politicized) issue of gun control and the Second Amendment. But, we here at Abnormal Use must ask the question:  How does gun manufacturer liability stand up when stripped away of its political overtones?

To set the stage, today’s issues involve the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), signed into law by President George W. Bush back in 2005. The PLCAA affords gun manufacturers and sellers immunity in state and federal lawsuits. The immunity, however, is not absolute. For example, there is no immunity in cases in which the seller knew the gun would be used in a crime, the gun buyer was obviously unfit to own a gun, the sale violated the law or the injury resulted from a manufacturing defect. Proponents of the PLCAA claim that the law is necessary because manufacturers should not be held responsible when a rogue gunman misuses the product. Opponents argue that the law provides manufacturers free rein to market and distribute guns like “assault rifles” that needlessly endanger the public.

Admittedly, we can understand both sides of the issue. On the one hand, holding gun manufacturers liable for the misuse of non-defective products appears to defy basic product liability principles. Product liability typically rests on three theories (1) defective design, (2) manufacturing defects, or (3) failure to warn. If a person uses a product for a malevolent purpose, but the product is free of defects, then in most instances the manufacturer would be free of liability. If the product is defective and the defect results in injuries, then the manufacturer may be liable. The PLCAA recognizes this and contains an exception to immunity for defective guns. Guns like “assault rifles” are currently legal to sell, own, and possess. In some ways, holding a manufacturer liable for the crimes of others would be akin to holding Cutco liable for a knife attack or Louisville Slugger for an assault involving a baseball bat. On the other hand, guns like assault rifles are different than a kitchen knife or a baseball bat. The AR-15, the gun used in the Sandy Hook shootings, is a military grade assault weapon marketed to civilians. While technically legal, the weapon, unlike a kitchen knife or a baseball bat, arguably is not fit for any reasonable civilian use and needlessly endangers the public.

Josh Koskoff, the lawyer representing the Sandy Hook victims in the lawsuit against Remington, recently stated:

This case is about a particular weapon, the AR-15, and its sale to civilians.  It has nothing to do with the firearms industry as a whole. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars — uniquely dangerous and not suitable to public use. The AR-15 was designed and manufactured for the military for the purpose of killing the enemy with maximum efficiency. The families’ lawsuit does not contend that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. Indeed, Remington and other manufacturers’ production of the AR-15 is essential to the military and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for highlighting the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing.

While we do not necessarily agree with all of Koslkoff’s contentions, he makes an interesting argument. What do you think?

Footlongs Measure Up: Subway Lawsuit Settled

Back in 2013, we here at Abnormal Use wrote about a class action lawsuit filed against Subway challenging the restaurant’s “footlong” sandwich claims. The crux of the allegations in the suit was that Subway’s sub sandwiches measured in at just under 12″ long and, thus, were not worthy of the “footlong” label. We questioned the merits of such a suit and were curious as to how it would play out. Now, some two years later, we finally have an answer. According to reports, Subway has reached a settlement in which it will pay $500 to the 10 named plaintiffs. Subway will also spend the next four years placing a “measuring device” in its stores to make certain its subs are, in fact, 12″ long. But, the real kicker is that Subway will also have to pay approximately $500,000 for the plaintiffs’ legal fees.

As far as class action lawsuits against major corporations are concerned, the settlement appears to be pretty light. While the lawyers may have gotten a hefty payday, the plaintiffs only racked up a grand total of $5,000 and, in turn, Subway has to put a ruler in its restaurants. Not exactly world changing for either side.

So, how did Subway get off so cheap? As expected, the case was lacking in the merits department. According to a report from Forbes, testing revealed that the vast majority of the bread was at least 12″ long and any bread that didn’t meet the threshold erred by less than 1/4″. Moreover, the raw dough sticks used to bake the bread weigh exactly the same. The length of the subs varied only due to natural variability in the baking process. In other words, not only does Subway’s sub length largely measure up, the damage the plaintiffs incurred due to any inaccuracies in the bread length is almost non-existent.

Unfortunately, it took two years to reach a resolution to this case lacking in merit. As we mentioned two years ago, a person receiving a sub he/she expects is less than 12″ long could have likely remedied the situation simply by asking for a new bun or even a refund for that matter. After all, Subway makes its subs right in front of the customer and adds toppings at the customer’s direction. Wouldn’t the customer be able to suspect that the sub is short during the process? If not, then would the difference really be big enough to matter? Thankfully, Subway now has rulers, so this will NEVER happen again.

Lawsuit Over Negative Yelp Review Has Unexpected Consequences

Like many businesses, Prestigious Pets, a pet sitting company in Dallas, Texas, is open to reviews on the crowd-sourced site, Yelp. Until a few short weeks ago, the company had a plethora of 4- and 5-star reviews and undoubtedly enjoyed the benefits of being a highly rated business. However, Prestigious Pets didn’t take too kindly to one negative reviewer and has decided to file suit. Now, those precious high-star reviews are getting drowned out by backlash from the Yelp community.

According to a report from Fox News, Robert and Michelle Duchouquette saw the positive Yelp reviews for Prestigious Pets and retained the company to take care of their dogs and fish while they were away on a trip. However, when they checked into their fish tank’s live video feed (who has this?) and saw the tank looked cloudy, they took to Yelp to voice their displeasure with the tank and some of the company’s billing practices.  The Duchouquettes were so upset about the experience that they left Precious Pets with the dreaded 1-star review. In response, Precious Pets filed suit against the couple for allegedly violating a non-disparagement clause contained in a contract the couple signed when retaining the company.  Prestigious Pets is seeking more than $6,700 in damages.

This is the classic case of not weighing the benefits of a “legal win” versus the negative repercussions of filing the lawsuit. Prestigious Pets has a total of 109 Yelp reviews.  Forty-eight of those reviews have come since news of the lawsuit broke. Of those 48, there are 43 1-star and 2 2-star reviews. Prior to the news, Prestigious Pets had 53 5-star and 5 4-star reviews. Doing the crude math, the filing of this lawsuit has brought Prestigious Pets’ rating from an overall average of 4.5 down to a 3 and that number continues to fall.  \Sure, Yelpers can read the reviews and discover that many of the recent negative reviews are mere reactions to the suit and not focused on the services provided. But, they can also see that the risk of a negative review is the possibility of accepting service of a summons and complaint. Not exactly the business model Prestigious Pets envisioned.

Revolutionary Hot Coffee Lawsuits Filed in California

According to a report from ABC-30 (Fresno, CA), two Fresno women have recently filed suit against McDonald’s alleging that they sustained burns caused by hot coffee. There is nothing unique or interesting about two new hot coffee suits as they have been commonplace in the 20+ years since the infamous jury verdict in Liebeck v. McDonald’s. What is interesting, however, is that Plaintiffs’ counsel and ABC-30 seem to think they made some newfound discovery as to the reason these suits keep popping up. As reported by ABC-30:

Wagner says hotter coffee stays fresh longer, so McDonald’s usually chooses to keep it too hot — saving more than $1 million a day at franchises across the country. Legal analyst Jeff Hammerschmidt says that savings may be more valuable than customer safety. ‘It appears McDonald’s has made a business decision to sell the coffee hotter to be able to make more profit and they continue to make more profit even if they’re paying settlements,” he said.

In other words, McDonald’s serves hot coffee because it is good for business. Talk about a newsflash.

We jest at this recent epiphany about the association between hot coffee and higher profits, but the argument is clearly nothing new. The argument was pivotal in the Liebeck  trial and the jury based its $2.7 million punitive damages award on McDonald’s two day revenue from hot coffee sales. In any event, this “corporate greed” theory ignores the simple point made here at Abnormal Use many times – coffee is served hot because people like it that way. In discussing a hot coffee suit filed against Chick-Fil-A back in 2011, we had this to say about the hot coffee-sales comparison:

Back in 1994, Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Charles Baxter opined during the Liebeck trial that the optimal temperature to serve coffee was between 155 and 160 degrees. Defense expert Dr. Turner Osler indicated that coffee served at a temperature as low as 130 degrees could result in burns similar to those sustained by Ms. Liebeck. Further, Reed Morgan, Ms. Liebeck’s counsel, theorized that any coffee served over 140 degrees was “unreasonably dangerous.” If this testimony from the Liebeck trial is true, why do top fast food chains continue to serve an allegedly “dangerous product?” Either restaurants have a diabolical agenda to harm their patrons or they have recognized that people enjoy their coffee piping hot.

The ABC affiliate’s study demonstrates that the Liebeck case did little, if anything, to alter the manner in which fast food restaurants serve coffee. Further, it reveals that the conduct of McDonald’s in the early 1990s conformed to industry standards – both then and now. Critics of the restaurant chain – and those who attempt to use the Liebeck case to advance the agenda of the Plaintiffs’ bar – simply fail to acknowledge the fact that coffee, by its very nature, is meant to be served hot. No one wants to consume a lukewarm cup of sub-140 degree coffee. Restaurants recognize this fact, as do consumers of coffee. Why can’t the trial bar? If Mr. Morgan honestly believes that any coffee served at a temperature greater than 140 degrees is “unreasonably dangerous,” then he essentially argues that coffee should be taken off of restaurant menus. Starbucks did not become a morning staple because of its iced coffee selections.

Does McDonald’s serve hot coffee because it is concerned about its bottom line?  Sure, it does, but what business doesn’t act in ways to maximize profits?  McDonald’s, Starbucks, or any other coffee-selling establishment serves coffee hot because the consumer demands it.  And, for this reason, we have questioned whether coffee can be construed as “unreasonably dangerous” in most situations.

On an interesting note, ABC-30 measured the serving temperature at the McDonald’s at issue in the recent lawsuits and found the temperature to be 153 degrees – less than the optimal serving temperature prescribed by the plaintiff’s expert in the Liebeck case. The coffee in ABC-30‘s break room? It was served at 167.5 degrees.

Mozzarella v. McDonald’s: The Latest Chapter in the Restaurant’s Litigation Saga


We here at Abnormal Use have written much about McDonald’s and its history with absurd lawsuits. Of course, much of the discourse centered around the infamous Stella Liebeck hot coffee case and its progeny. As much as we have downplayed its significance, we must admit that the most recent suit filed against McDonald’s makes the Liebeck case look like Marbury v. Madison. According to a report from, a California man has filed a class action lawsuit against the fast food chain seeking $5 million in damages over purportedly defective mozzarella sticks. Kind of makes burns from a cup of hot coffee sound like child’s play.

So how was the man (or the proposed class) injured by the McDonald’s mozzarella sticks you ask? They weren’t. At least not in a way that necessitated medical attention. The plaintiff, Chris Howe, takes issue with McDonald’s claims that the sticks are “100% real cheese” and “real mozzarella.” Specifically, Howe alleges:

The sticks are filled with a substance that is composed (in part) of starch, in violation of the federal standards of identity for ‘mozzarella’ cheese, and contrary to reasonable consumers’ expectations regarding the meaning of the term ‘mozzarella.’

Howe believes McDonald’s cut costs by using a starch filler to comprise 3.76 percent of the “cheese,” and, thus, has engaged in deceptive practices. For the record, McDonald’s denies the allegations, stating that the mozzarella sticks are made with “100% low moisture part skim mozzarella cheese.” Whatever that means.

Regardless of the genetic make-up of the McDonald’s mozzarella sticks, the real question is whether anyone can actually be deceived by their contents. Last we checked, the mozzarella sticks are a new item made a part of the “2 for $2” menu. In layman’s terms, a customer can get mozzarella sticks and a double cheeseburger for $2. Federal standards for identifying “mozzarella” aside, don’t expect the finest organic, farm-to-table ingredients in dollar cheese sticks. And, if you really think McDonald’s is an appropriate destination to satisfy for mozzarella craving, don’t expect anyone to fork over $5 million when they don’t live up to your expectations.

Lip Balm Users Rejoice, EOS Lawsuit Settled As Quickly As It Began

Just a couple weeks ago, we wrote about the new class action lawsuit over the insanely popular Evolution of Smooth (EOS) lip balm. In that suit, the plaintiffs allege that even though the EOS packaging claims the product makes lips “moist, soft, and sensationally smooth,” the lip balm allegedly caused blisters and rashes around the mouth. We questioned whether there was any inherent difference between the ingredients of EOS lip balm and its competitors, and in so doing, and we became curious how the suit might fare. Well, according to new reports, the wait is over. Unfortunately, questions remain.

As reported by Today, EOS has announced that it resolved the lawsuit as soon as it began. While the full terms of the settlement are unclear, EOS will not be required to change any of its ingredients, but the packaging will contain more details about those ingredients and how to use the product safely. The financial terms of the settlement have not yet been disclosed.

EOS had the following to say about the agreement:

We are pleased to announce that the class action lawsuit brought against eos earlier this month has been resolved. Our products are safe — and this settlement confirms that. Our lip balms are hypoallergenic, dermatologist tested, made with the highest quality ingredients, meet or exceed all safety and quality standards set by our industry and are validated by rigorous safety testing conducted by independent labs. We love our customers and their enjoyment of our products is our top priority. We thank them for their continued support.

The quick settlement of this class action suit is quite interesting. Clearly, EOS wanted to send the simple message that there is nothing defective about its product. Resolving the case early and with a statement that all of the product ingredients will remain the same certainly makes good business sense and likely puts the clamps on loyal customers who may have thought about switching to a competitor.  But, the question remains, at what cost? For a product that is safe, we hope for EOS sake that any financial settlement was in the cost of defense range.

The most intriguing part of the settlement is, of course, the agreement to add instructions to the product packaging on how to use the product safely. While we are admittedly novice lip balm users and in no way consider ourselves to be experts, we are curious as to how users could use lip balm in an unsafe manner. It seems inherent in the name that lip balm is to be applied to the lips. But, surely, that is not the issue. Maybe the instructions say something about not applying the lip balm obsessively every five minutes? But, if the product keeps lips “moist, soft and sensationally smooth,” how can constant application be a bad thing? We are so confused.

The Dark Side Lives: Darth Vader Infant Bodysuits Recalled Over Choking Hazard


The dark side of the Force did not die along with Darth Vader at the hands of Emperor Palpatine in Return of the Jedi. Before you start accusing us of giving away The Force Awakens spoilers (as if there is anyone who hasn’t already seen the film), hear us out. We here at Abnormal Use have substantial proof that the dark side is alive and well and not tucked away in a galaxy far, far away. Last week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) announced that Walt Disney Parks and Resorts has recalled Darth Vader infant bodysuits because they are harmful to innocent children in the most predictable, dark side fashion. The bodysuits, which contain the slogan, “If you only knew the power of THE DARK SIDE” pose a choking hazard to children. And, the Force choke lives on.

Darth Vader Infant Bodysuit

In an attempt to hide the presence of the dark side, the CPSC claims that the hazard posed by the Vader bodysuit is not the Force choke but detaching snaps which somehow find their way into infants’ mouths.  But who does the CPSC and Walt Disney Parks think they are fooling? We recognize the power of a Sith Lord when we see it.

The recall apparently also includes Disneyland 60th Anniversary infant bodysuits but clearly those suits were also touched by Vader’s power in the factory. For those that actually believe it is possible to rid the world of the dark side, the bodysuits can be returned for a full refund. Nonetheless, the CPSC will continue to monitor any disturbances in the Force.

Keeping Up With the Kardashians: EOS Lip Balm Edition

Fueled by attractive containers and endorsements by high-profile celebs like Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears, EOS (Evolution of Smooth) lip balm has created a fad out of keeping one’s lips chap-free. Need proof? Walk through the halls of an elementary, middle, or high school or the grounds of a college campus, and you will undoubtedly see EOS lip balm in the hands of many. Unfortunately, all is allegedly not well with EOS lip balm, however. According to a new class action lawsuit, when you walk through those same school halls, you will also see rashes and blistered lips. Not exactly EOS’ target result.

As reported by Time, Plaintiff Rachel Cronin has filed a class action suit in California against EOS, alleging that the lip balm causes lips to crack, bleed, and blister. Cronin alleges that her lips felt like “sandpaper” hours after using EOS lip balm. She then re-applied the product to “smooth” her skin, but it caused her lips to crack, flake, and bleed. The next day, she allegedly had blisters and rashes around her mouth. Those symptoms allegedly lasted for 10 days. The EOS packaging claims to be 95 percent organic and able to keep lips “moist, soft, and sensationally smooth.”

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Dr. Marie Jhin, a San Francisco dermatologist, opined that the reactions to EOS lip balm are allergic contact dermatitis, possibly in response to Vitamin E contained in the product. Dr. Lauren Ploch, a New Orleans dermatologist, stated that while she did not know what is causing the symptoms for EOS users, many or her patients are allergic to natural oils such as beeswax, a component of EOS lip balm.

This will be an interesting suit to watch as it unfolds. If this is really an issue about Vitamin E or beeswax, EOS is certainly not the only lip balm manufacturer to utilize those ingredients. It is just the only one to have megastar endorsements.

My Cousin Vinny CLE? Sign Us Up (If Only We Lived In Pennsylvania)!

As the calendar turns to a new year, it is time to check on the status of your continuing education credits. If you are a few hours short an just happen to practice in Pennsyvlania, we have found the perfect CLE opportunity for you. On January 21, 2016, the Pennsylvania Bar Institute is sponsoring a very intriguing CLE entitled,”A Morning With My Cousin Vinny:  Developing and Presenting Your Case.” According to the course website, the CLE will offer insights on numerous trial techniques, including cross-examination, expert witnesses, eyewitnesses, discovery, and opening statements, presumably with My Cousin Vinny as a backdrop.  The course offers three substantive CLE credits and well as one ethics credit.

As is the case with many lawyers, we here at Abnormal Use are quite fond of My Cousin Vinny. So much so that back in 2012, we honored the 20th anniversary of the film by dedicating a whole week of blog space to Vinny-related posts, including interviews with the writer, director, actors, and our own lessons learned from the film. It goes without saying that we were more than pleased to learn about the PBI’s Vinny initiative and wish all states would use the film as a teaching tool. For example, here are few of the Vinny lessons we previously reflected upon:

Lesson 1 – Pick Your Battles

Scene:  Vinny doesn’t ask any questions at the preliminary hearing.  His client, Stan, angrily asks, “Why didn’t you ask them any questions? Maybe if you’d put up some kind of a fight, you could have gotten the case thrown out!”  Vinny calmly responds, “Hey, Stan, you’re in Ala-f*&%in’-bama. You come from New York. You killed a good ol’ boy. There is no way this is not going to trial!”

Lesson:  Sometimes, as an attorney, you need to know when to pick your battles.  Of course, by this point in the movie, Vinny didn’t have all the great exculpatory evidence he acquired later.  However, Vinny is probably right that  there was no way the case would be resolved without a trial.  It may have been a smart move to play it close to the vest and not reveal too much of his trial strategy.

Lesson 2 – No Argument in the Opening Statement

Scene:  The prosecutor, Jim Trotter, delivers a textbook opening statement – a fine recitation of the prosecution’s version of the facts combined with a clever attempt to massage the  jury’s collective ego.  Then, Vinny stands and delivers his own rather brief opening statement:  “Uh . . . everything that guy just said is bullsh*t. Thank you.”

Lesson: You’ve been dying to deliver this same opening statement for years, haven’t you?  It’s punchy; it cuts right to the chase.  But alas, such a retort is an improper argument.  Perhaps Vinny should have saved that approach for his closing argument.

Lesson 3 – Match Your Negotiation Strategy to Your Opponent

Scene:  Vinny finds out his girlfriend got stiffed on a game of pool with some yokel.  He flies down to the pool hall to collect, and the yokel asks, “How ‘bout I just kick your ass?”  Vinny retorts, “Oh, a counter-offer. This is a tough decision here. Get my ass kicked or collect $200?  Well, here’s my counter-offer: What if I were just to kick the ever loving sh!t out of you? . . . If I was to kick the sh!t out of you, do I get the money?”

Lesson: So much for that “Getting to YES” model where everybody wins.  Vinny invokes the old school tradition in his negotiations. Sometimes, that works.  It’s all about knowing your opponent.  Some are unreasonable. There’s no getting to “yes” without cracking skulls and forcing them to into agreement.  Vinny’s method succeeded, and he eventually collected that $200.

Lesson 4 – Do Some Digging

Scene:  There’s a long montage where Vinny performs his own investigation into the case.  He has his girlfriend take some photographs along the way.  Vinny is clearly annoyed when she’s trying to show him the pictures in the middle of trial.  He starts ranting, “Where’d you shoot this, from up in a tree? What’s this over here? It’s dog sh!t… That’s great! Dog sh%t, what a clue! . . . I should’ve asked you along time ago for these pictures.”  But then he realizes there’s a picture of the tire tracks, which really is the case cracker.

Lesson:  Most of the time, the facts will make or break your case.  As an attorney, you can’t always wait for the facts and evidence to come to you.  Even when you think you’ve got everything you need, keep digging.  Get out there and visit the accident scene, personally inspect the physical evidence, and talk to everyone you think knows anything about the case.  You never know what you are going to find if you keep digging.  It sure paid off for Vinny in his trial, and some day, that same diligence may pay off for you in one of your cases.

Lesson 5 – Be Collegial with Fellow Attorneys

Scene:  At one point in the movie, Vinny and the prosecutor engage in friendly discussion about their entry into the legal profession.  Later in the film, the prosecutor takes Vinny on a hunting trip, lets him borrow his cabin, and even congratulates him after Vinny’s victory over him at trial.

Lesson:  It’s a given that you should be a zealous advocate for your client.  But that doesn’t mean you can’t be civil, or even friendly, with opposing counsel.  At the end of the day, you are both just doing your job.  As everyone knows, one’s profession is more enjoyable when you’re working with friendly and respectful people.  Two attorneys should be able to duke it out in the courtroom and then grab a drink together after the trial concludes.

Lesson 6 – Stay Calm

Scene: As Vinny’s defense of his clients begins to unravel, he asks himself, “How the f*&k did I get into this sh!t?”  Luckily, Vinny keeps it together and eventually earns his clients their freedom.

Lesson: For many attorneys, your first trial will feel just like this movie (although hopefully, it won’t be as bad in reality).  You’ll have things that will go way off course, and there will probably be a point where you feel like you’re in way over your head.  You may even start asking yourself “Am I cut out for this?” or “How did I get into this?”  Don’t despair. Stay calm and press on.  By your second or third trial, things will seem much better.

There is certainly much, much more that can be learned from the movie and we are sure our friends with the PBI will do an excellent job of bring it to the everyday practice of the CLE attendees. For those of you who don’t live in Pennsylvania and remain interested in seeing what the film says about expert testimony, eyewitness testimony, opening statements, and discovery, feel free to check out these interviews on those subjects (and more) with the Jonathan Lynn (director), Dale Launer (writer), Raynor Scheine (actor who plays an eyewitness), and James Rebhorn (actor who plays State’s expert witness).