CROSS EXAMINATION TIPS - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

I am presently reading a book entitled Your Witness , which is essentially a compilation of cross-examination pointers collected from prominent Chicago lawyers. [In the interest of full disclosure, the book was sent to me, in the hopes I would mention it on my blog]. Having said that, I have thus far greatly enjoyed most of it, in part because I happen to know many of the contributors, and acutally worked for a couple of them. I will periodically include some of the better material. James Montana, a former federal prosecutor, contributed a chapter entitled “Knowing When to Stop”. Montana was representing one of a number of defendants charged with RICO violations for using the facilities of interstate commerce[i.e. credit cards] to further prostitution. The indictment charged that the defendants, through the guise of a health club, actually ran a house of prostitution. The defense was that the health club was indeed a health club. Turns out though, that particular defense wasn’t very compelling. The prosecution called a slew of witnesses, all of whom testified to sexual activity inside the club. According to Montana, the defense knew it was in trouble. One of the governnment witnesses however, didn’t hurt the defense. This guy, we’ll call him Mr. Holmes, worked in a bookstore owned by Montana’s client. The bookstore was right next to the club and Holmes testified that he went into the health club on a pretty regular basis, over a long period of time. Nonetheless, Holmes testified he never saw any acts of prostitution taking place. Montana concluded the witness was blind, and wisely chose not to ask any questions on cross. The attorney for one of his co-defendants however, couldn’t help himself. Montana then included the following dialogue[I eliminated only the name of the place so I don’t get sued]. Q: With regard to what observations you made in relation to activities going on at the health club, you would from time to time, exit the bookstore and go into the premises at the health club, correct? A: Correct. Q: On those particular occasions, when you went into the health club, you observed nothing specific, isn’t that correct? A: I saw a naked man on a dog leash once. Does that count as something specific? COURT: That is fairly specific. Montana writes that the laughter from the Court, the prosecutors, defense attorneys and spectators went on for several minutes. Sometimes you just have to leave well enough alone.

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.