Skip to main content


September 16, 2013 Alison Bennett published in the D CEO: What Business Execs Can Learn From the Paula Deen Scandal

By Articles 5,504 Comments

What Business Execs Can Learn From the Paula Deen Scandal

First off: have a good lawyer.

by John G. Browning     Published 9.16.2013     From D CEO OCT 2013


Take one outspoken personality presiding over her own media and culinary empire. Add a pesky lawsuit by a disgruntled ex-employee. Allow time to simmer, under the cross-examination of a videotaped deposition. When the mix boils over with damaging admissions of racial insensitivity, liberally sprinkle the results across media outlets nationwide. Such was the recipe for the meltdown of the Southern-style cooking empire of Paula Deen in the wake of admissions that she had used racial slurs.

Click Here to Read More

June 24, 2013 Alison Bennett published in the Jury Expert – 80 iPad Apps Attorneys Love, 8 Days a Week: An App Strategy for Work, the Courtroom, and Your Personal Life

By Articles 8,448 Comments

YOU’VE SEEN LIST AFTER LIST of “best of” apps, so let’s have a little fun with it this time.  We’ve identified 80 iPad apps you can use in your professional and personal life, and we introduce them to you by following a couple of fictional law partners through their adventures for a week to see how they put their tablets to use.  So let’s get started with John Frugalis and Agnes Smith.  Both were early adopters of iPad technology.  John prefers free or less expensive versions of apps when possible, while Agnes is all about efficiency and doesn’t mind shelling out a few bucks for a little technological peace of mind.

Most of the apps John and Agnes use are iPad native, which means they were written for the iPad, although some are optimized for the iPhone 5, but are compatible with iPad.  If you prefer to simply read about the apps, there is a guide available for download…Click Here To Read More

October 1, 2012 Alison Bennett published in the Jury Expert – Neurolaw: Trial Tips for Today and Game Changing Questions for the Future

By Articles 5,293 Comments

Neurolaw: Trial Tips for Today and Game Changing Questions for the Future

September 30, 2012 Posted in: Bias, Case Preparation and Presentation, Litigation Advocacy

The future of law is standing on the courthouse steps. Neurolaw – the combination of neuroscience research and the law – is worthy of attention for a number of reasons. Neuroscientists are conducting ground-breaking research with a machine called a functional MRI, or fMRI, which is similar to traditional MRI technology but focuses on brain activity, not just structure. Some would argue the use of neuroscientific evidence based on fMRI research is a premature adoption of a novel technology, but neurolaw evidence is already influencing jury trials in the United States and abroad. Billions of dollars are being pored into interdisciplinary neuroscience research each year in the United States and abroad. While we cannot predict the point in time at which the intersection of technology and law will merge to create credible courtroom evidence, we can look to neurolaw research today for research findings that confirm current trial practice techniques and offer new insights into jury decision making and the art of persuasion.

Current Criminal Trial Applications

In the United States, neuroscientific evidence has been admitted in over one hundred criminal trials now, has been cited in at least one U. S. Supreme Court case, and is being admitted as evidence in other countries as well. In many cases, neuroscientific evidence was offered to mitigate sentencing by presenting neuroimaging highlighting brain damage that could have diminished the perpetrator’s capacity and ability to make rational decisions. In one recent trial in Montgomery County, Maryland, Circuit Court Judge Eric M. Johnson allowed pretrial testimony about issues from the minutiae of brain analysis to the nature of truth and lies. After testimony by renowned experts in the field, Judge Johnson decided to keep the evidence out of trial, concluding the current lack of consensus among neuroscientists casts too much doubt on the results to present them as evidence to jurors. However, brain scan evidence was used in 2008, in Mumbai, India, to convict a woman of murder, along with circumstantial evidence. This conviction prompted strong criticism from bioethicists, who posit neurolaw research is still in its infancy, suggesting brain scan findings are not reliable at this point in time.  Click Here To Read More