Neal Puckett in the News

Cisse’s chief attorney, Neal A. Puckett, insisted the death was a case of negligent homicide. He said he will submit evidence that Cisse, who served two terms in Iraq, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

PREPERATION IS THE KEY TO WITNESS IMPEACHMENT

When a client of mine was accused of committing rape, one of the challenges I had to deal with was the evidence from the Government's medical expert. After reading her report I realized that she was not going to be a fair witness. She made conclusions that were clearly tilted towards the Government 's position without the necessary foundation for that position.

I began preparing my impeachment of her by thoroughly investigating her background. She had testified in 500 trials and not once had she testified for the defense. In my research, I also discovered a study that addressed claims of rape and other sex crimes. The study had found that as many as 5% of all claims of sexual assault are false. Statistically speaking, it meant that of the 500 cases that she testified in, there should have been about 20 that were false claims. Yet, not once did she testify for the defense. She was a "hired gun," with an agenda. I knew that I would be able to use that information and her record against her. I continued to dig into her reports. I use the plural because the government turned over two identical reports in the discovery packet. I assumed that the second copy was a mere duplicate. I took a look at the reports and concluded that they were duplicates. I set the other aside and continued to read but something bothered me. I wasn't sure what it was however.

As I prepared for my cross examination of the medical expert, I decided that I was going to go through all the documents including both copies of the report because something continued to nag at me. I just didn't know what it was. I decided to put the two copies side by side and compare them word for word. They were identical...except...they weren't. One report had a different date than the other. They were identical otherwise. I didn't know what to make of it. I decided to make enough copies of both reports because I felt that I would need them. I wasn't quite sure why or how I would use them yet.

On day three of the trial, the Government finally called their medical expert. She waddled up to the witness stand and took her seat. She answered in practiced short sentences always turning and looking at the jury. She had been rehearsed and ready. I knew her type. I knew I had to handle her carefully. I would lead the whole time to tell my own story but also try to make her angry by casting doubt on her abilities and education. Once she starts to fight me, the jury will see through her.

When my turn came, I stood up I greeted her. She responded curtly. She was already hostile. I decided that I would have to change tactics and go for the jugular. You're a hired gun I said. "Objection" "you get paid to testify for the Government." "Objection" asserted the prosecutor again. "Hold on counsel" said the judge. What's your objection counsel? "Relevance your honor" said the prosecutor "and argumentative." "Sustained" said the judge. I had drawn blood and she was on edge and on the defensive. The jury were awake. I began by going into the number of cases she had worked and the statistics of the study. She agreed that there is some false reporting but that she had never come across a false report and never testified for the defense. Then I got to the two reports. And it was there that I definitively won the case. Generally, lawyers aren't supposed to ask open ended questions on cross examination because you don't want the witness to explain himself. In this case, however, I took a calculated risk. No matter what her answer is, I decided, it can't be good to have two reports with different dates. So, I asked why? Why are there two of the same report with different dates? "Objection"...yes! I thought. The prosecutor missed it, almost as I did. What's your objection said the judge? "We haven't seen the second report your honor" the prosecutor replied. Defense? "Your honor this is government discovery. I got it from them," I said, pointing at the prosecutor. "Overruled" said the judge. "Continue counsel." Can you explain the two reports I asked. She paused composing herself and fidgeting in her chair. She explained that she wrote a report immediately after the exam but changed it a week later. The changes included conclusions that were substantially prejudicial to my client. She reluctantly explained, as I pressed her, that she removed pages from the initial report and replaced them with new pages that had been changed. I smelled blood in the water. For the next 90 minutes I destroyed her and her credibility. I made the rest of the trial about her. The jurors lost faith in the prosecution. They no longer trusted anything the prosecutors had to say and stopped listening to their witnesses.

As a result of my preparations and my thorough investigation of the witnesses and the evidence. I was able to gain the jurors trust and confidence. I was also able to destroy the credibility of the Government's key witness and cast doubt on their entire case. My client was acquitted of all charges and won his life back.

Justice - Despite the Government's Efforts to the Contrary

While serving as a military judge in the Marine Corps, I docketed a murder case and set a date for trial. Shortly thereafter, I learned that the two experienced young Marine Captains assigned as prosecutors in the case would no longer be trying the case. Instead, a much more experienced LtCol, the deputy legal advisor to the commanding general, would come in from another base to be the prosecutor. I then learned that the military defense counsel in the case had advised his client to elect a bench trial (a judge instead of a jury would decide guilt or innocence).
On the day of trial, the prosecutor presented his case and I learned that the defendant, a Marine, had been assaulted in his own home just off the base by two Marines in his unit who believed he had beaten his wife. Fleeing upstairs, he ran to his bedroom closet and retrieved his .22 cal rifle, presumably in self defense. A struggle ensued in which one of the assailants jumped on the victim's back and grabbed the rifle from behind. The other Marine assailant (the victim) grabbed the rifle barrel while facing the defendant and jerked the barrel to one side. As he jerked the rifle barrel, the gun went off, firing a round through the victim/assailant's neck, killing him almost instantly. Since there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually pulled the trigger, rather than having it pulled by the victim jerking the barrel, I acquitted him of murder and he went free.
The prosecutor was livid and it got back to me that he was rather critical of the military judge who reached "the wrong verdict." However, what I also discovered is that the county sheriff conducted a thorough investigation and recommended to the county prosecutor that no charges be filed against the defendant Marine. The Marine Corps then assigned the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) to conduct an investigation. NCIS recommended that no charges be filed. Charges were filed anyway because the commanding general had met with the parents of the victim and promised them that he "would bring their son's killer to justice." So he committed to a position that was not supported by the evidence in the case.
The evidence was presented to an impartial senior Marine lawyer who served as the investigating officer at an Art 32 investigation. That lawyer recommended that the charges be dismissed. The two experienced young Marine lawyers, I also learned, withdrew from the case on ethical grounds, arguing that they would risk disciplinary action from their state bar associations if they prosecuted the case. The LtCol deputy legal advisor did not feel the need to consider his ethical obligations and thus followed orders to prosecute. So the Marine defendant was prosecuted for murder, despite the fact that there was no evidence to prove it.
That's what can happen when the system is intentionally distorted and manipulated to achieve a predetermined result, despite the absence of evidence. The senior legal advisor to the commanding general should never have allowed his boss to promise "justice" through prosecution before an investigation is completed. There should have been no charges filed and the parents of the victim should have been forthrightly told that their son actually caused his own death in his assault of the defendant. Unfortunately, though, too many military commanders these days are afraid to make what they know are the right decisions. Instead, they would prefer to hand it over to their lawyers and either hide behind "the legal system" or abuse it to achieve a desired outcome.
The lesson to be learned is that the defense counsel in the case was experienced enough to understand that, under those circumstances, a military judge who was knowledgeable in the law and whom he knew would evaluate the facts dispassionately and reach the correct legal verdict was to be preferred to a jury. Experience and knowledge of the system is essential to maximizing the chance that true justice will be the result. Those who control the military justice system cannot always be relied upon to use it wisely or fairly.

VA Secretary says PTSD and TBI are overblown

President Bush's Secretary for the Veteran's Administration believes that PTSD and TBI are overblown.

The skilled Voir Dire and Overcoming Jury Bias

One of the most common questions asked by defendant's of their lawyers is how do we make sure the jury is fair? Or, how are we going to make sure they see my point of view? deciphering or discovering jury bias is a skill that few lawyers master. The process by which biases are discovered is called the Voir Dire. It literally means "to Speak Truths." The voir dire is a process by which lawyers get to ask questions of the panel of possible jurors to try and determine if they have any inelastic opinions or certain views or experiences that may cause them to be biased or unfair. Few lawyers grasp the importance of the voir dire and use it to truly ensure that the panel of jurors is impartial.
We at Puckett and Faraj, PC believe that a trial may be won with a properly conducted voir dire. We use techniques and skills to develop and ask questions that not only ensure that a panel is impartial and fair but also sympathetic to our client and his or her narrative. Our preparation for voir dire includes mock trials, the use of role players, psychodrama, and, of course, the extensive skills of Mr. Faraj and Mr. Puckett and their ability to reach in and capture the attention and allegiance of jurors.

Our website is now public

We're proud to announce that our website is now public. We invite you to visit it to find out even more information about our areas of practice, including our helpful links to information about PTSD and TBI. Please click here to go to the site or go to www.puckettfaraj.com

Our site will continue to be a work in progress. We, therefore, invite you to provide us any feedback that you might have or recommendations on improving the site.

Haytham Faraj Attends Gerry Spence' Trial Lawyers College

Managing Partner Haytham Faraj recently participated in infamous Gerry Spence' Trial Lawyers College regional seminar in Dubois, Wyoming. The focus of the seminar was the use of psychodrama to draw the client's story from the client so that the jury can be brought into the narrative by the attorney and understand.