Part of David Serna’s long career in the field of law is an equally long string of accomplishments, accolades, and awards. These are a testament to the trust and expertise he cultivated for years among colleagues and clients, as well as the groundbreaking cases that he had expertly handled. He looks back at his successes and sees them as stepping stones to the next one, bolstered by his work ethic and robust moral code, as well as a determination to succeed on his client’s behalf.

His Specialization

In New Mexico, lawyers aren’t allowed to call themselves specialists without specific, stringent certification and official recognition. This is what sets David Serna apart from his fellows: he is a Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist according to the board at New Mexico. He is also a Diplomate and Criminal Trial Advocate in The National Board of Trial Advocacy in Boston.

The National College of DUI Defense

Part of his most significant achievements is being a founding member of the National College for DUI Defense. Created in 1995, this highly exclusive Harvard Summer Program admitted Serna and made him one of only 60 attorneys nationwide to be able to participate. He has continued to attend ever since and has even provided teaching presentations to attorneys and judges at the Continuing Legal Education seminars about the topic of Drunk Driving Defense.

The National Organization of Reform of Marijuana Laws

David Serna has also made strides as an active lifetime member for National Organization of Reform of the Marijuana Laws, or NORML. He and his network of members regularly consult and participate in conducting seminars that are dedicated to new and innovative methods of drug defense.

As a Criminal Defense Mentor, David Serna has continued to serve other lawyers with high distinction. The Chief Federal Judge has even appointed him to the Criminal Justice Act Panel Committee. Serna’s commitment to his duty and to change is seen in every aspect of his work. His achievement and something he wishes to pass on to the next generation of lawyers.

Court procedures can be difficult to understand if not explained in layman’s terms. Examples of the most common questions include what an arraignment is, what happens after an arrest, how does the prosecutor determine the correctness of a criminal charge, and what standard does the grand jury or the judge use in determining the propriety of a trial.

Today, David Serna gives a simple discussion on some aspects of criminal procedure. Here are some things included in criminal procedure:

1. Arrest or detention

The two terms technically differ, although both involve a restraint on one’s freedom. An arrest may be effected with or without a warrant, depending on the circumstances surrounding an incident. Detention, on the other hand, does not require a warrant at all. It is simply a means to conduct a brief and cursory questioning. This commonly happens during traffic violations.

• Determination of probable cause

After the arresting officer has submitted a report to the prosecutor, he decides whether there is a reasonable ground to file a criminal complaint against the suspect. Should he agree with the officer’s report, the case will either go through a probable cause hearing, to be conducted by a judge or through a process before a grand jury.

• Trial

The defendant often holds the right to a trial. However, David Serna has observed that in some states, both the defendant and the prosecution hold this right. There are two ways trials are conducted. It may be done before a judge or a jury. A jury is usually composed of 12 individuals, who may or may not be knowledgeable of the legalities of a case. Some states, however, allow a 6-member jury.

• Deliberations

After the defense presents a closing argument, the prosecutor may or may not argue anymore. Either way, the prosecution has the final word, just before the judge or jury deliberates on the merits of the case.

• Verdict

To reach a criminal verdict, members of a jury, in most cases, must be unanimous in their decision. Otherwise, the case may be retried.

Learn more about criminal law and procedure. Visit David Serna’s website today.

David Serna reminds prosecutors that when preparing for the presentation of a case, they must make an exhaustive yet understandable discussion of their evidence. The evidence must be arranged clearly for the jurors and easy to follow. The way the story is presented has a significant impact on the attention of the jury. Prosecutors must ensure that they do not lose the interest and focus of their listeners.

There are several ways to effectively connect with the jurors without compromising the state’s theory of the case.

The prosecutor must first be able to establish the reliability of the state’s theory of the case, evidence, and witnesses. If he fails to establish this, he fails to convince the jury.

The defense counsel will most likely oppose or object to the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution. This is something the prosecutor should expect, especially when conducting a direct examination of witnesses.

The prosecutor must anticipate what the defense counsel will ask during the cross-examination and how the defense will impeach the state witnesses. This helps the prosecutor formulate the questions he will ask during the direct examination. The prosecutor must ensure that what he asks establishes the trustworthiness and credibility of his witnesses and evidence.

David Serna reminds prosecutors that their job is not easy, especially since the evidence required for the defendant’s conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So much depends on the evidence presented and how these pieces of evidence relate to each other. Any doubt cast upon the evidence presented by the prosecutor defeats the objective of the state. If the jury does not find his evidence convincing, chances are the defendant will be acquitted.

A direct examination needs to be prepared for in order to convince the jury. This is a conversation between the counsel and his witnesses. Lawyers, in general, must be wary of sounding like the testimony is scripted. The more scripted the testimony sounds, the less reliable it will seem.

Learn more about trial preparation and courtroom etiquette. Follow David Serna’s blogs today.

Trial lawyers must be prepared to cross-examine expert witnesses. This requires extensive preparation because triers of fact and counsels are rarely equipped with knowledge about the subject matter covered by the expert testimony. Additionally, the behavior of each witness differs from each other. Some expert witnesses can explain and communicate matters in layman’s terms while others use highfalutin and technical terms.

David Serna says that litigation lawyers must give themselves an honest assessment of the level of knowledge they have on the matter. Being aware of these limitations will help them outline what type of questions they need to ask. Today, he will discuss how to prepare for the cross-examination of expert witnesses.

1. Prepare for and study the subject covered by the expert testimony

Researching and seeking a second opinion from experts will help the counsel, at the very least, grasp the basic principles of the subject. The lawyer must acquaint himself with the common terms used in the field to which the expert belongs.

During the cross-examination, it is likely that the expert witness will use jargon to confuse the jury and the opponent’s counsel. Lawyers must prepare questions that are intended to clarify these matters.

• Prepare for terms that sound common but carry different meanings in the field to which the expert witness belongs

There are terms which are used in daily or colloquial conversations that are also used in medicine, science, and other fields. David Serna says that as a lawyer, you must ask the expert witness to define these words. Expert witnesses may deliberately use everyday language to sound understandable when, in fact, what they mean is different from what is commonly understood.

• Prepare for expert witnesses who make conclusions based on personal opinion and not technical knowledge

One way an expert testimony would convince the jury is to sound like they are narrating from technical knowledge when, in fact, the testimony is merely based on personal opinion or conjecture. The reason why the lawyer must know enough about the subject is that he may end up getting fooled into believing what the expert is saying.

Learn more insights from David Serna. His topics cover litigation, criminal defense, and criminal law.

Impeaching a witness is a common tactic used to weaken the evidence of an opponent. There are many ways to challenge the credibility of the testimony, discredit, or impeach a witness. Lawyers must bear in mind these grounds as they become relevant during the cross-examination. The goal is to give the jury a reason not to believe the testimony of such a witness.

Today, David Serna gives helpful advice on how to challenge the credibility of a witness based on lack of competency.

Federal Rule of Evidence 601: General Rule of Competency

The provision in the FRE gives a broad scope for the competency of a witness. The law presumes that every person is a competent witness. It is then up to lawyers to find restrictions to the competency of a witness.

Fact witnesses are generally considered competent; whereas opinion witnesses must be able to prove that they are qualified to give opinions. Qualifications are based on foundational evidence, which is subject to cross-examination.

David Serna stresses that lawyers must discern whether the opinion offered by the witness is exaggerated or whether the witness has overstated his or her qualifications. Lawyers must first examine the experience, educational background, and credentials of the expert witness.

Counsels usually get all-purpose expert witnesses to help their theory of the case. The opposing counsel must be mindful of whether the witness is an expert on the subject being testified about. During the cross-examination, the opposing counsel is tasked to limit the testimony of the witness to his or her area of expertise.

Should the counsel perceive that the witness is underqualified, he must attack the witness’ competency either by filing a motion to exclude the testimony or by exposing the witness’ disqualifications during the cross-examination. The lawyer may start asking questions involving the witness’ undergraduate degree or the work in which he or she is engaged.

Follow David Serna’s blogs for more tips and advice on litigation.

Going to trial for the first time is something you don’t learn from textbooks and just by observing your colleagues. For many newly minted lawyers, experiencing it even for the second or third time is still nerve-racking. The experience varies depending on who your opponent is and what case you are handling. Today, David Serna, an established lawyer in New Mexico, shares techniques and advice you won’t read from textbooks.

1. Reread and review the records.

It’s one thing to know court procedures and another to apply them. Apart from rereading the procedures and tasks you need to complete on the day of trial, it would be useful to review all the pleadings, exhibits, pieces of evidence, depositions, laws, and court rulings relevant to your case.

Remember that knowing the cause of your complaint is not enough to build a good case. It is important that you know the opposing counsel’s allegations, defenses, rebuttals, and objections. Mastering your strengths and weaknesses is just as crucial as mastering those of your opponent’s. This is also true for lawyers taking the side of the respondent or the defense.

• Prepare an outline for the examination of witnesses.

It would be wiser first to develop a theme on which to anchor your outline. Many young lawyers make the mistake of planning the questions and simply listing them down. Sticking to a set of questions, rehearsing them, and reading them to the witnesses during the trial can keep you from seeing the bigger picture and establishing an understandable and logical flow of facts.

David Serna advices young lawyers to include in their outlines issues that may arise from evidentiary matters. You must be able to anticipate your opponent’s objections and prepare ways to address them by citing both the law and key cases.

• Observe your audience.

The jury, the judge, and your opponent mainly make up the audience. Observing their reactions, comments, and facial expressions can help you anticipate what will happen next. By observing them, you can gauge what they want to see and hear from you.

To know more about the practical side of litigation, read David Serna’s blogs.

Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.

— Oscar Wilde.

This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.