Robert C. Widman, Esq. (Ret.)

Robert C. Widman, Esq. (Ret.)

A couple of examples of when we’ve used Magnus that you may not often think about is we’ve had cases that because of the work that Magnus has done we’ve learned about weaknesses in our case that we really didn’t think were quite as strong of a weakness as when we evaluated the case. And, once we became aware that we had the weakness that we learned through the help of Magnus, we reevaluated our trial strategy, and in some cases settled the cases, and in some cases changed how we tried the case. I think that was very helpful. I can remember one case that we actually showed Magnus’ report and recommendations to opposing counsel and he had done his own study and, because the two came with similar results, we were able to settle the case for about four million dollars, it was a very satisfactory result on a case that the client did not want to go to trial on. We’ve had other cases where we learned about things that we never would have thought about.

I remember a case, where the jurors were fascinated and disgusted by my client’s long fingernails and we would have never thought about that. We picked that up by listening to the jury talk and as a result we had him cut his fingernails. We did get a couple million dollar verdict on that case but those are the kind of little things you learn by following Magnus’ procedures and learning to hear what the prospective jurors might be thinking that you might not have thought about otherwise.

I think that’s very helpful to us. In fact, they are here right now to help us evaluate a case on an area that we have not had a good deal of exposure with, and it’s a tricky area involving abuse by a clergy of a minor. It’s a tricky area, so we wanted to get some insight as to what the jurors might look at the case and the responsibilities so we can approach as possible mediation of the case or whether to try the case and how to put our trial tactics together. So there are a lot of things we learn through Magnus. We have used them to help pick jurors. We used them to help evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of our case. I remember one case where Dr. Pigott told me if there was one particular fact that came out it would kill our case. I later learned through discovery that that fact existed. I called Dr. Pigott, we reviewed her report and with her help we decided to settle the case because that fact was such a strong fact against us. We settled that case for about five million dollars and I think that we would have had a hard time if we would have gone to trial with that fact that had come out late in discovery.

So those are the kind of things that we have learned through Magnus that I think make it a very good tool for lawyers that handle cases that are worth putting the money into. You wouldn’t handle smaller cases, we don’t use Magnus for that. But the seven figure cases and the larger cases, even six figures that are a little trickier, we’ve used Magnus repeatedly in the past and have had a lot of success and certainly would recommend them to lawyers that handle those kinds of cases.

More Posts