Stan speaks out.

• Author: Levco, Stan
• Position: Trial tactics and teaching methods

I AM TEACHING Trial Advocacy at the Indiana Maurer School of Law and, although I've taught on various legal topics for more than a quarter century, this time it's different.

In the past, I've always focused on how to be an effective prosecutor. But now it's more universal.

Yes, I'm using my vast knowledge of trial tactics to give advice to not only prosecutor wannabes but to potential defense attorneys who may one day use something I said to thwart the noble plans of some fine upstanding God-fearing law-abiding society-protecting advocate for the people.

I realized that after decades of tailoring my advice to the prosecution, attempting to be neutral might pose a challenge. So for my first class, I asked a fellow instructor, whose day job is judge, to monitor my class to make sure I played it straight down the middle.

I divided the class in half, one half prosecuting a mythical case, the other acting as defense. We role-played various stages of the trial, with my giving helpful hints along the way, carefully measured in equal proportion to both sides. The hour flew by and when it was over I was confident I had managed to keep whatever bias I might have had in check.

"That wasn't so bad, was it?" more like stating than asking Judge Mary Ellen.

"No, it wasn't so bad," she replied, emphasizing the word "so" before continuing, "but there are a few things you might want to consider."

"Like what?"

"Well, for starters, I think by dividing the class into 'good' and 'evil,' you send the wrong message."

"How so?"

"It kind of implies that it's a foregone conclusion the defendant is guilty. Perhaps you should have just said, 'prosecution' and 'defense.'

"Point taken. Anything else?"

"When you were talking to the evil side, you said, your primary job is to get the best deal you can for your client."

"What's wrong with that?"

"Nothing, as far as it goes. But how about exploring the possibility that the client might not be guilty? Perhaps someone else committed the crime."

"I don't get it. What do you mean he 'might be not guilty'? Are we talking theoretical or real world here?"

"Both. And even if he committed the crime, the proof may be lacking. The defense should always be looking to raise a reasonable doubt."

"I guess you're right. Anything else?"

"Now that you mention it, when you were coaching the prosecutors, you told them to devise a coherent strategy and theme to prove their case, but when it came time for the defense, you asked them the best way...