Ironclad Verdicts

  • 16 November, 2023
  • 56.2 MB

On this episode of the Justice Team Podcast, Bob Simon and fellow Justice Team member Travis Davis share their expertise on securing and safeguarding verdicts. Anyone can get a verdict, but you must protect the record! Travis recounts his experiences with major cases, including a $161 million verdict against Suzuki and  another with a significant confidential settlement, all going to verdict, exploring the intricacies of product liability cases and the importance of a Law & Motion department in litigation. Listen now to hear strategies for protecting verdicts post-trial, dealing with juror misconduct, and the necessity of strong team collaboration and accurate record-keeping, offering valuable advice for young lawyers.

Travis Davis, The Simon Law Group


Bob Simon (00:07):
All right. Welcome to this edition of The Justice Team podcast. Today we’re going to talk about how to actually get paid on your verdicts, how to make them ironclad. Usually starts with having your Law & Motion department early and often. And today, we have my esteemed partner who runs our Arizona outfit and is our Law & Motion Head of Department, Mr. Travis Davis. Travis, how are you?

Travis Davis (00:28):
Good, Bob. Just flew in from Tucson this morning. And I appreciate the Tucson flare here.

Bob Simon (00:35):
Yeah, I wore some Tucson, nice, little, heavy sweater jacket. A shacket, if you will. And Travis didn’t even wear his bolo bow tie like a jerk.

Travis Davis (00:43):
I don’t even have my boots on.

Bob Simon (00:44):
No boots. God, he’s such an LA guy as soon as he gets here. Yeah, we do film from our Torrance Justice HQ location with a built-in studio. If you’re watching on YouTube, it’s pretty fly. Again, if you have any questions or comments, want to talk about a case, go to and we will get back to you.

So Travis, let’s get right into it. You recently had a $101 million verdict, which included punitive damages against Suzuki. You’ve had a very big eight-figure confidential settlement after a liability-only verdict up north, Northern California, San Mateo. You’ve been on another 10-figure verdict, which has now morphed into a bad faith case, which we can talk about too. So why don’t you just educate our listeners. When do you start to get involved in these litigation cases that might be headed to trial?

Travis Davis (01:33):
Yeah, so it really depends on how the case is being worked up. On the Soulliere case, we’ve been on it since 2018.

Bob Simon (01:44):
That’s the Suzuki case?

Travis Davis (01:46):
Yep. Soulliere v. Suzuki, $161 million verdict on a retrial. As you know, our first trial was about $8 million, but I had been on it from before that, fighting MSJs, going down the whole path of motion to strike punitives, all of that, which obviously didn’t work. We got punitives in this trial. That was the lion’s share of it.

But other cases, I just come in last minute. The confidential settlement that we had in San Mateo, Greyson Goody and Eric Bell asked me to join probably a month or so before the trial. So I came up, I did the MILs.

Bob Simon (02:32):
Motions in limine, for those of you who are listening that may not know, the motions to exclude in federal court, these types of things.

Travis Davis (02:38):
Yeah, so on that one, we were able to exclude very crucial evidence and that set us up nicely for trial. But it’s, for me, I think it’s important to stay on board, not just to back off when my motions in limine are heard and granted, but rather to stay on board with the trial attorneys, whether I’m in the courtroom or not. I’ve done both because oftentimes, especially on these big cases, you’re hit with motions again and again.

Bob Simon (03:12):
Oh, yeah. Like the Suzuki case, you had three teams of defense lawyers, motions every day, motions probably for mistrial every day that you got to deal with.

Travis Davis (03:20):
Yep, yeah, exactly. Especially on that one, three national defense firms. And we were briefing the court almost every day, if not every other day or so.

Bob Simon (03:30):
And are you physically there for that? Are you remote? Are you getting real-time transcripts? How does this go down?

Travis Davis (03:35):
So it just depends, and that’s what’s great about the way we communicate now. On that one that you were talking about that was in bad faith now, I was there every day, but I wasn’t taking any witnesses. I was just there to listen, watch the evidence, see what happens so that I can just go home and just start busting out whatever motions I need to write.

On others, like on the Suzuki case, I wasn’t there in person after the motion in limine hearings, but I communicated hourly with our co-counsel, Gabe and Robbie, on WhatsApp. And just whatever they needed, whatever questions they had, or I would ask them questions, “Hey, what’s the judge thinking about this issue?” Or, “What did this witness say?” So that I can start teeing up the list-

Bob Simon (04:29):
Yeah. And for our listeners, I think the practical point is when you do stuff in team, I encourage you to set up chat rooms rather than just regular iChat or something because in other chat rooms, whether it’s Slack, Teams, WhatsApp, depends on the platform, you can share documents in real time. You just need a wifi.

Travis Davis (04:46):
Yeah. Another thing is it’s so important to get dailies from the court reporter. Especially during trial, but even after trial, when you get hit with post-trial motions, you want to have everything ready. You want to have the full transcript.

Bob Simon (05:02):
Because you know what’s coming. You know what they want to argue.

Travis Davis (05:03):
Exactly, exactly. The last thing you want to do is be waiting for transcripts when you have to oppose a new trial motion or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Bob Simon (05:13):
Okay. So in the Suzuki case, we had a retrial where the appellate court remanded. What are some things… And this is a product liability case, so why don’t you walk our listeners through? And we’ve tried the same type of case together, product liability, and you were there with us in-person every day doing law and motion. Why don’t you walk everybody through the causes of actions that you had, the defects you had to cure from the appellate court, just so our listeners can understand when they take a case like this, what they’re in for?

Travis Davis (05:40):
Sure. Yeah, that’s a lot. We had product liability and negligence. So in the product liability category, we had design defect, we had manufacturing defect, we had failure to warn, we had the whole gamut, and we also had a negligence cause of action. And that sort of brings in everything. It’s all-encompassing. You’re not limited on your evidentiary presentation by having that cause of action there.

In terms of the error in the underlying trial or the initial trial, the appellate court found three main prejudicial errors and there was really one that was an issue going forward and that was linking our client’s crash to the so-called recall condition. So when Suzuki recalled the bikes that have this type of brake system, they narrowly defined it as corrosion leading to buildup, gas buildup within the front-brake master cylinder that leads to eventual brake loss, loss of braking power, not complete brake stop.

Bob Simon (06:58):
Yeah, we had Gabe Houston on here who was the lead in that trial and knows everything about these cases and he was explaining some great just… What do they… Making the average juror understand what that means, he had a windshield wiper kind of analogy. So yeah, I mean, these things get real technical.

Travis Davis (07:17):
Very, very technical. And actually, that brings up a point. Another thing we had to brief was what’s our burden? So we don’t just go in there and say, “Here’s our case.” We actually briefed the judge on what we need to prove to prove up this technical product liability case. And really when you get down to the root of it, and California case law helps with this tremendously, is you have the consumer expectation tests, as you know, we used in that ATV case.

Bob Simon (07:47):
Well, no, they didn’t allow us to use that. Remember? That was the big… Remember, the judge struck us using that? That was crazy.

Travis Davis (07:53):
Yeah, okay. That’s right. Well, anyway-

Bob Simon (07:55):
But California, why don’t you walk us through the consumer expectation test? Because I think it is probably the simplest way to win in these cases.

Travis Davis (08:03):
It is.

Bob Simon (08:04):
And I do believe that it makes the most sense.

Travis Davis (08:07):
Yeah. So you can use it when it’s a product that consumers can understand what its purpose is and how its defects can cause injury. Really that’s the key. In this case, sure, we have a front-brake master cylinder. Who knows what that even is? And it has pistons and it has springs and all of this. And there’s different metals that combine with the brake fluid and causes corrosion. The average person doesn’t understand that. I didn’t understand that before I came on to the case, but if you back up and have a nice view overhead of it, you have a motorcycle whose brake-

Bob Simon (08:50):
Front brake didn’t work.

Travis Davis (08:51):
… didn’t work. Right.

Bob Simon (08:52):

Travis Davis (08:52):
Yeah, and that’s it. That’s the defect. Did the consumer, in this case, Joey, expect the brake to work when he pulled the lever? Of course he did. So we’re able to use that test.

Bob Simon (09:02):
Yeah, and I think that’s why I think that cause of action makes the most sense because you have 12 jurors that are not engineers. I think in your jury, you did have a handful of motorcycle riders though.

Travis Davis (09:13):

Bob Simon (09:14):
And by the way, Travis is the only other attorney in our office that has more tattoos than I do, so congratulations.

Travis Davis (09:19):
Appreciate that.

Bob Simon (09:20):
Oh, yeah. We should do this without shirts next time.

Travis Davis (09:23):
Yeah, there you go.

Bob Simon (09:24):
Maybe, maybe not because we want to keep this PG. So anyway, the consumer expectation test, let’s walk us through. You also had a failure to warn.

Travis Davis (09:32):
Yeah, we had failure to warn, and that really goes to the recall. They knew about this issue for years. From 2007 is when they first got notice of brakes failing on these bikes and they didn’t do anything about it for the next however many years.

Bob Simon (09:55):
Do you give the lawyers or discuss, “Hey, here are the building blocks of evidence that you need to get in to win on each areas of these evidence to make sure you have an ironclad verdict?”

Travis Davis (10:03):
Absolutely. So it might be overkill. I mean, we’re all smart people, but for me, there’s no harm in repeating what needs to be done to my co-counsel. So, absolutely. I would say in this case, for example, we had an expert who was a braking expert and he was in our first case, he actually wasn’t called in the first trial and that was an issue on the appellate court level. But anyway, we had him in the second trial and it was of primary importance that we had him make the connection between the recall condition and the brake failure. And so I was very repetitive on that and we got it done.

Bob Simon (10:52):
Because you need that sound bite from sworn evidence at trial to use it later in the post-trial motions to win.

Travis Davis (10:57):
Right, exactly. And it really goes… That’s in every case. It’s not just product cases. Think about a spine injury auto crash. If you have bills, sure, you can have your client talk about it, but you need that soundbite of the expert saying, “Yes, I reviewed that bill. That’s reasonable and customary in the industry.” It’s as simple as that.

Bob Simon (11:19):
Yeah, right. And you know what’s funny? I always put in big bold on my outlines when I do directs of any expert in trial for the building blocks, like big, bold at the end, “Do not forget: reasonable degree of medical probability. In future it’s reasonably certain to occur,” and I just say it verbatim to make sure that we get that in.

Travis Davis (11:33):
Right, exactly. Yeah.

Bob Simon (11:35):
You had three things that, on remand, the appellate court wanted you to cure on the Suzuki case that led from them. I mean, call it what it is. They went from getting tagged for six, seven, eight million to like $150 million or $160 million.

Travis Davis (11:48):

Bob Simon (11:50):
Buyer beware. So what were the three things you said you had to cure?

Travis Davis (11:53):
So connecting the recall condition to the complete brake failure that Joey experienced.

Bob Simon (11:58):
Check. Did that.

Travis Davis (12:03):
We cured that. If the police report statement is going to come in, it would need foundation from them. This was sort of a thing that was on the court’s task of what to do. And the court, in my opinion, cured that by allowing the officer to testify in a 402 hearing in this trial, and the officer failed to lay the foundation for it. So, check.

Bob Simon (12:31):

Travis Davis (12:32):
Right? That didn’t come in because it wasn’t even a quote; it was a statement from the officer talking about how Joey’s brakes locked up indicating that they worked, they just locked up for whatever other reason. But it wasn’t in quotes. And as you know, most officers put it in quotes if it’s an actual statement from-

Bob Simon (12:53):
Somebody might of heard it from somebody else or heard it from somebody else and they just write it down with no quotes, so they put it [inaudible 00:12:57].

Travis Davis (12:56):
Right, right. So this officer wasn’t able to remember the crash or anything about it and wasn’t able to lay the foundation. So we’re good there.

And then the last thing was, it was the… Remind me, the CACI on destroying evidence?

Bob Simon (13:12):
Willful Suppression of Evidence?

Travis Davis (13:13):
I forgot what number it is.

Bob Simon (13:14):
203, maybe? Something like this in California?

Travis Davis (13:16):
Whatever it is, but yeah-

Bob Simon (13:17):
205? I don’t know.

Travis Davis (13:18):
It’s Willful Suppression of Evidence. We were given that instruction in the first trial, and I think justifiably so, but the appellate court obviously found issue with it and so we left it alone. We made a record on it because we still think that it was something that’s justified, but ultimately the court did not allow it in, so that’s not an issue.

Bob Simon (13:41):
So, check. Even if you… And I think a lot of our listeners or viewers need to understand this, is that you don’t have to win on every issue. That makes it easier for you to win on appeal by making that concession and being like, “Whatever, whatever.”

Travis Davis (13:53):
Right, exactly.

Bob Simon (13:53):
Which I always felt like, why even have that jury instruction? People like judges are always hesitant to give it. It’s like, “Your Honor, they destroyed the surveillance video.” “Ah, I don’t know.” It’s like, “Why do we have it then?” But in reality, the jurors still get it.

Travis Davis (14:07):
They get it.

Bob Simon (14:07):
They still get it.

Travis Davis (14:08):
Obviously. And we had that other one, the San Mateo case, that was a confidential settlement after the first phase and-

Bob Simon (14:16):
Well, you could still talk about the liability phase. It’s still public record.

Travis Davis (14:19):
Right. I’m talking about the settlement.

Bob Simon (14:20):

Travis Davis (14:21):
Yeah, yeah. So in that phase-

Bob Simon (14:24):
It was like a six-week trial, by the way. Greyson Goody and Eric Bell tried.

Travis Davis (14:28):
Yeah, it was grueling.

Bob Simon (14:29):

Travis Davis (14:29):
Yeah. So in that case, it was the most egregious spoliation that I’ve ever seen.

Bob Simon (14:38):
Yeah. And just for our listeners or viewers, in this case, a caretaker gets a call to fill in, take care of an elderly woman, puts her in the wheelchair, calls the elevator, turns around backwards, the elevator door opens, dinging, she backs up, there’s no elevator, she falls a few stories. The elderly woman falls on top of her, she passes away. Our client had catastrophic injuries.

Travis Davis (15:01):
Massive injuries, yeah. And actually, we were able to get a motion in limine granted on the death of the lady that she cared for.

Bob Simon (15:12):

Travis Davis (15:12):
Because the only thing it would do is bring sympathy. Of course, obviously the plaintiff’s sympathetic to that. It’s a tragic situation, but it’s not-

Bob Simon (15:20):
Well, and also-

Travis Davis (15:21):
First of all, the fall wasn’t her fault.

Bob Simon (15:24):
Yeah. The owner was also the son of the woman that passed away, which to me, I’m like, “Come on. You couldn’t even take care of your own property your mom lived?” I’m like, “Whatever. You don’t…” It wasn’t supposed to be in. But they tried.

Travis Davis (15:36):
Yeah. So in that case, they had an inspection, a visual inspection with everyone present, and then everyone agreed, let’s come back later and do a destructive testing, run the elevator, see what’s happening, check the oil, all of that stuff.

We come back for the second inspection. It had been ran and the oil was clean. It was completely egregious. They even admitted at the hearing on this spoliation motion that they went there, but they said it was fine because they’re doing a visual inspection and, “Trust us, we didn’t mess anything up with the elevator. But yes, we ran it.” It was insane.

Bob Simon (16:17):
Well, that’s the stuff you got to deal with. And in that trial, you’re also dealing with every day some sort of mistrial motion or something.

Travis Davis (16:25):
Yeah. So in that case, we did have a motion for mistrial. For me, when I’m in the heat of trial, there’s so much you need to research. So I like to use lots of sources, but one that’s really nice, that’s sort of changed the way we’ve practiced recently is artificial intelligence, AI, and Casetext is a great example of that. You can go on there and type in… It’s like you’re texting another attorney, “Hey, what are the rules on…” Or, “What’s the standard for motion for mistrial?” It just pops up. So that’s super helpful.

Bob Simon (17:09):
Yeah. And I think that was the time whenever… And I think we were talking about Casetext. By the time this airs, we’ll have a discount, 10% off for our listeners. We’ll drop it into the link into the bio of the feed.

At that point, I think we were still test-driving on behalf of CoCounsel to see, or it’s Casetext’s product CoCounsel, to see how well it could be used. And I remember one issue being there was some archaic rule about the local rules in San Mateo, and the defense was trying to do something and was just literally asking CoCounsel the question that gave Greyson the answer. We sent it to him on the chat and he won that issue.

But yeah, so AI should make your job a lot… Well, a compliment to your job, make it easier.

Travis Davis (17:49):
Yeah, it’s a compliment, for sure. It’s a tool that you can use. I mean, we’re testing other programs where it drafts an entire motion for you, but just like if you have an associate-drafted motion, if you’re filing it, you need to look at it. That’s just simple. That’s an ethical rule that we’re bound by. And it’s a practical rule because ultimately you’re the one in there telling the judge, this is your position, and if it’s not right on paper, well, that’s on you.

Bob Simon (18:19):
Yeah. So have you tried just to run one of these AI products against an associate and see who did a better job?

Travis Davis (18:30):
I won’t name any names. No, I’m just kidding.

Bob Simon (18:32):

Travis Davis (18:33):
I haven’t done that.

Bob Simon (18:35):
That’d be a good little test. Good little test. Yeah. So again, let’s go back to our listeners are probably interested in kind of the setup on some of these product liability cases. We talked about failure to warn. If there’s no recall, I remember the case that we had, it’s literally the sticker or the warnings were not efficient, or they weren’t in the handbook or they weren’t available to the consumer. I mean, do you have to win on every one of these issues to get to damages or can it just be one of these issues to get to damages?

Travis Davis (19:02):
To answer your question, just one.

Bob Simon (19:04):

Travis Davis (19:04):
If you win on product design defect, you’re good. Manufacturing, you’re good, whatever. And the Suzuki case, we won on every single count.

Bob Simon (19:12):
Every one of them. How many counts?

Travis Davis (19:16):
I think that would be… Well, the three products and the negligence. I think there was maybe one more, maybe a warranty or something.

Bob Simon (19:25):
There’s also an issue on comparative on your client and also another vehicle that they said caused the original collision.

Travis Davis (19:31):
Yeah. So in this case, if Joey had the brakes that should have been on the bike, then he would’ve been able to stop. There wouldn’t have been any issue there. Of course, the lady in the SUV pulled out in front of him, right? She created the danger, but under normal circumstances, he would’ve been able to break and it would’ve been no problem.

Bob Simon (19:54):
And no comparative on them? It was 100% on Suzuki.

Travis Davis (19:57):

Bob Simon (19:57):
All right, so tell us about when you… Okay, you have this ironclad verdict now. You’ve cured what the appellate court asked you to do. You get this $11-plus million dollar verdict on the compensatory damages and the jury checks that box on willful malice, oppression, or fraud.

Travis Davis (20:16):

Bob Simon (20:18):
What evidence do you need to get there?

Travis Davis (20:21):
To get to that point?

Bob Simon (20:22):
To get to that point.

Travis Davis (20:22):
To have them ask that question?

Bob Simon (20:23):
To even have them ask that question. How do you get there?

Travis Davis (20:25):
Well, we present… In this case, we had, through the work of Gabe, we had all of these internal emails that talked about Suzuki’s knowledge, deep knowledge of this issue, knowledge for years, going on for years. Of course, they said, “Well, we don’t know the root of it, so what are we to do?” Well, what you’re to do is pull the product off the market. Who cares what the sales effect is? They acknowledge and it’s obvious that a brake issue is a matter of life or death. So if you know there’s an issue, then you pull the product, right?

And they didn’t. They tested it internally for years until they finally found what the issue was, and then even still, they didn’t cure it right away.

Bob Simon (21:18):
Can this just be like a rank-and-file manager of Suzuki, American Suzuki? I mean, how do you get it on a company, those punitive damages?

Travis Davis (21:25):
Well, these were top executives, so it was pretty clear this runs deep in the company. There was an email from about a year before the recall talking about, “Okay, we need to initiate this, but sales season is coming up and it’s going to affect that.” That’s so damning.

Bob Simon (21:47):
So then you get that box checked yes. All right, now you entered into the punitive damages phase. Do you have any… This case right now still could go on appeal. Suzuki will likely never ever try to pay anything unless they’re forced to. After you get that verdict, you go to the punitive damages, you get that award. What are the next steps? Let’s talk about what do you do to protect the verdict after the verdict happens? What’s next?

Travis Davis (22:15):
Well, the judgment was just signed recently, so that’s starting the deadline for everything. So we’re going to be filing our memorandum of costs. We have a huge amount of costs in this case because we’ve tried it twice, and we-

Bob Simon (22:30):
I think it was like $7 or $800,000 last I saw with recoverable costs.

Travis Davis (22:32):
Yeah, plus interest.

Bob Simon (22:34):
Plus interest.

Travis Davis (22:35):
You put interest, just a little tidbit for the listeners, you put your pre-judgment interests on the memorandum of costs. It’s very important.

Bob Simon (22:43):
Yeah, and I think some people making mistakes about that is they don’t put the pre-judgment interest on it. So there’s another big, big practice point. You can reach out to Travis or go to and ask us for an example. But that judgment’s important. It has to be right.

Travis Davis (22:57):
Absolutely, yeah. And we ran into that issue on a case years ago, and we had to eventually do a 473(b) motion, which basically means we messed up. So don’t mess up. Just put that on there. You put it on the last line, the other, and it’s funny. It’s other, and then it’s your gigantic pre-judgment interest, but that’s where you put it.

Bob Simon (23:18):
Yeah. And some defense counsel will just salivate and wait for the judgment, like, “Oh my God, they forgot it. Ha ha.” This one says tens of millions. Good for forgetting. Okay.

Travis Davis (23:27):
So anyway, to your question about protecting it, we’re ready to fight these post-trial motions. I know that something’s coming. A new trial motion, potentially a remittitur as the alternative.

Bob Simon (23:43):
Remittitur just means you could say lessen the verdict.

Travis Davis (23:46):
Right. And everyone I talk to talks about the multiplier ratio, the ratio between our compensatory and our punitives, which I get. It is a big gap, but we’ll be ready to fight that. There’s case law that supports it, especially with how egregious this is.

Bob Simon (24:05):
Yeah, I mean, it’s right in line with what kind of the Supreme Court said with the ratio. So I think it all should be well and good. If the jury went and said $2 billion, you might have a problem, but they didn’t give everything you asked for for punitive. So it should be and I think it’s the right thing to do.

So what happens? Okay, no. One of the other things that’s not under your control is they’ll claim perhaps juror misconduct.

Travis Davis (24:29):
Yeah. So that’s another thing that’s really important is you need to get in right away, right after the verdict’s read, and you’re dismissed from the courtroom, go talk to the jurors. You want to, anyway, right? You’ve been working this case up for however many weeks and you’re curious. You finally get to actually speak to these-

Bob Simon (24:47):
Oh, have you watched that movie or that show Jury Duty yet?

Travis Davis (24:49):
No, you were talking about that.

Bob Simon (24:50):
Oh my god, it’s so funny. But they make a guy, the only guy that’s not in it but everybody’s an actor, is just a guy that they interview throughout the process of his jury duty selection and they get sequestered and it’s fucking hilarious. James Marsden’s just one of the jurors, but it’s actually him, and he’s just so pissed off he’s there all the time. It’s really funny.

Travis Davis (25:08):
That’s awesome.

Bob Simon (25:09):
But just funny shit happens all the time.

Travis Davis (25:11):
Yeah. Nice, nice.

Bob Simon (25:12):
Oh, man.

Travis Davis (25:14):
Yeah, so we talked to the jurors. Robbie did. Robbie, he’s one of the most personable people that we know. So he gets in there and talks to them and makes sure that they decided it right and sounds like they did so I think we’re good.

Bob Simon (25:28):
Yeah. And one thing after a lot of verdicts that I’ve had over the years, when I’m building up to what I know will likely be a large verdict, you can usually tell, read the writing on the wall, is I’ll hire an investigator to get all the information for the jurors that are already in the box. So as soon as the verdict is read, and some of them leave and disperse, want to go home, some want to stay and talk, you might not get a chance to… The other side, just so you listeners know, they’re hiring the same people. They’re called jurologists that are doing nothing other than to say, “Hey, I’m studying the science of why people get verdicts.” They’re there just there to try to get declarations from jurors to say stupid things of why the verdict should be taken away.

So what I do is affirmatively get all their information, reach out, have lunch, discuss their experience and tell them, “Hey, you don’t have to talk to me. You don’t have to talk to anybody. It’s up to you. The other side might hire people to say, ‘Do X, Y, Z.’ This might be the reason they’re doing it. It’s totally up to you. You can talk or not talk.” Right?

Travis Davis (26:19):
Yeah. And if you are on the side of getting juror declarations, either to protect your verdict or to fight a bad verdict, really read up on the rules of admissibility of these juror declarations-

Bob Simon (26:32):
It’s wild because it’s opposite of what you would think, right?

Travis Davis (26:34):
Yeah. You can’t say, “Oh, I thought this and that swayed it.” No, it has to be an open discussion amongst the jurors.

Bob Simon (26:41):
But they can say what they heard other people say, which is weird.

Travis Davis (26:44):
Yeah, it is weird. A lot of hearsay.

Bob Simon (26:46):
A lot of hearsay that you’re allowed to get into these juror declarations. But yeah, usually the judge is also the 13th juror there. They were there and lived and heard it and breathed it.

Travis Davis (26:55):
Right. Well, especially this judge. He heard it twice. He heard all of it and he knew what the issues were in this case.

Bob Simon (27:03):
Well, he read the appellate decision. He knows.

Travis Davis (27:06):
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Honestly, he made it tough on us, but I’m thankful that he did because he made sure that we laid the foundation for every single piece of evidence. And we did.

Bob Simon (27:17):
All right, so we’re at the end of the half-hour session that we have here, Travis. So what are just some parting words of wisdom you can give to those young lawyers or any lawyer trying a case to make sure that they protect their verdict?

Travis Davis (27:29):
If you’re able to, and you have the team like we do, have somebody in there to focus on everything that’s going on and to brief the court as often as possible so that your record is absolutely clear. Of course you have a court reporter there and you can orally argue, but to me, there’s nothing like sitting down, getting all of the case law, and putting it succinctly on the record.

Bob Simon (27:58):
Yeah. And I think for a lot of other listeners, they think they’re afraid of costs and things like this. There’s a lot of attorneys that do it for equity points or smaller amounts to be there to be your pen, to be your pencil, to put it to paper, to put it to pad, and get it filed with the court. A lot of times now they could sit there with products like the CoCounsel and be able to assist them, but I think trial lawyers in the moment have to be concentrated on what they do best so that you could do what you do best.

Travis Davis (28:23):

Bob Simon (28:24):
Yeah. And another practical point is being a trial lawyer who’s done a lot of these over the years, don’t go for the home run every single trial if it means that you might lose your verdict. I mean, a lot of people try to get in too much or try to play too fast and loose and how many times I’ve seen verdicts that are very large, they get taken away because of stupid shit.

Travis Davis (28:42):
Right, exactly. Yeah.

Bob Simon (28:43):
Stupid shit. Don’t cheat. There’s no need to cheat. You got to get a clean verdict.

Travis Davis (28:48):

Bob Simon (28:49):
Yeah, man. All right, well, if you have any questions or concerns, go to, click on that tab. If you have any questions, we’ll hear you. Travis Davis, thanks for coming on and get your ass back to Tucson.

Travis Davis (28:58):
Thanks, Bob. Yeah, I’m leaving today. See you.

Bob Simon (29:01):
I was a poet, didn’t even know it.

Scroll to top