5 www.loubar.org August 2025 Seven jury trials in 13 weeks in Circuit 13. Now, I’m not claiming that is a record num- ber of trials in circuit court, because it most assuredly is not. But it was a lot. It was both exhilarating and exhausting. The first of the seven took place the first full week of March and took two weeks to try. The last of the seven was tried the first week of June and lasted only two days. Each one was interesting in its own way. Four of the trials were civil and three were criminal. There was no duplication of attorneys in any of the trials. Large firms, medium sized firms and solo practitioners were represented in the civil trials while both public defenders and a private attorney rep- resented the defendants in the three criminal trials. All of the attorneys were well-prepared and enthusiastic about presenting their case before a jury. The first trial was a medical malpractice case. A man was seriously injured in a car accident and treated at University of Louisville Hospi- tal, but did not recover. His estate, his wife and his minor children brought this lawsuit against the treating physician alleging negligence and loss of consortium. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor. Trial number two was a criminal case where the defendant was indicted for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The entire incident was captured on bodycam video. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years after also being found guilty of being a persistent felony offender. The next trial was a civil case where the plaintiff, an elderly man, was visiting Louisville from Virginia with some family members to watch his granddaughter play in an AAU tournament. He stayed at a local hotel and, after going for a swim in the indoor pool, he exited through a door where the hydraulic hinge came loose and hit him in the head, causing injury, both physical and mental. The jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff awarding $440,000 for his damages. The fourth trial was a homicide where the defendant was found guilty of wanton murder for shooting his girlfriend in the head in her Observations from the Bench: Tips from Recent Trials Chief Judge Ann Bailey Smith PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE apartment. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Next up was a bad faith insurance case where the insurance company challenged a widow’s claim to her deceased husband’s life insurance policy which was, in fact, not contestable. After a four day trial, the jury returned with a verdict for the plaintiff for $8 million. Trial number six was another murder trial where the offense was captured on a co-de- fendant’s (who pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution) home security cameras. The shooter’s face was covered by a mask, but the defendant’s cellphone data put him in the area where the shooting occurred and established there were a number of calls between the defendant and the co-defendant on the day of the shooting, which ended shortly before the murder. The defendant was convicted and settled the sentencing for 30 years. The final jury trial involved a claim by the plaintiff, an employee, against a used car deal- ership for workplace discrimination. The jury rejected the claim finding for the defendant. The attorneys who tried these seven cases certainly were a credit to the legal profession and I felt proud on behalf of them as they advocated for their clients in front of these juries. They were well-prepared and presented their cases clearly and, for the most part, concisely. Here are some of my takeaways from presiding over these trials: 1. Voir Dire – pay close attention to the information provided on the jury quali- fication forms and ask follow-up ques- tions. Information is included about the juror’s employment as well as the spouse’s employment. This could be important information to take into account based on the particular facts of your case or to provide insight into the jurors’ mindset. Also, the juror or a family member may have been involved in a court case; fol- low up questions could lead to critical information to consider as to whether to exercise a preemptory challenge with this juror. 2. Also as to voir dire – questions should be designed to draw out information that you can then use in determining whether to make a strike for cause or, if that’s not successful, to use a peremptory challenge. In other words, why inquire about whether circumstantial evidence will be given as much weight as testimo- nial evidence if there is no circumstantial evidence in the case? 3. In one of the trials, there were a num- ber of documents which the lawyer intended to introduce as exhibits through several of the witnesses. The attorney put together a binder with all of these documents tabbed and numbered. The binder was left at the witness stand and, when the attorney was ready to have the document identified, he would ask the witness to turn to a certain numbered tab. This kept the attorney from having to repeatedly ask for permission to ap- proach the witness to hand the document to the witness. Not only did this save time but it eliminated the disruption in the questioning of the witness by having to repeatedly walk between the counsel table and the witness stand. 4. Don’t snipe at each other, particularly not in front of the jury. For most of the trials, opposing counsel appeared to get along well with each other while still strongly advocating their side of the case. In fact, in several of the trials, the attorneys as- sisted each other with the audio/visual equipment. But in one of the trials, the attorneys became personal with their attacks on each other while at the bench and, even after I ruled on the underlying objection, they continued to snipe at each other as they returned to their respective tables. This not only does not look good to jurors but the animosity does not as- sist the jury in making its decision. 5. Use of PowerPoint and courtroom tech- nology – juries expect to see surveillance videos, bodycam footage or at least pho- tographs and documents displayed on the large screens in the courtroom. In most of the seven trials, there was significant use of technology to reinforce the points made during direct and cross-examination. It becomes very noticeable when one side uses technology to their advantage while the other side fails to use it at all. One point of caution, however, from my observation is that the closing argument loses some impact when the jurors are reading along on the screen word for word as the attorney delivers the summation. The attorney spends more time looking at the screen than at the jurors. I hope the takeaways from my trials this year will be helpful to you as you prepare for your next trial. I look forward to seeing you in action in Circuit 13. Chief Judge Ann Bailey Smith presides in Divi- sion 13 of Jefferson Cir- cuit Court. n “ The attorneys who tried these seven cases certainly were a credit to the legal profession and I felt proud on behalf of them as they advocated for their clients in front of these juries.
