A 90-Second Police Chase That Led to a $37.5M Verdict

A 90-Second Police Chase That Led to a $37.5M Verdict

In this episode of The Trial Bible, we break down a high-stakes police pursuit case that resulted in a $37.5 million jury verdict—every dollar the attorneys asked for. What began as a split-second decision by law enforcement turned into a devastating crash that changed a man’s life forever. But in the courtroom, those “split seconds” were slowed down into a series of choices—each one examined, challenged, and ultimately held accountable. Joining us are trial attorneys Robert Chaiken and Paul Perkins, who walk us through how they built and tried this case from start to finish. 🔑 WHAT YOU’LL LEARN: * How to frame a case around decision-making vs. “split-second judgment” * The two key liability theories in police pursuit cases: * Lack of reasonable suspicion to initiate the chase * Reckless conduct during the pursuit * Why holding back your strongest fact (124 MPH average speed) can win a case * The strategy behind calling adverse witnesses first * How to use jury questions as a “scoreboard” during trial * Voir dire techniques for handling pro-police and anti-police bias * How to humanize your client through family testimony and simple exhibits * A powerful approach to damages: $1M per year framing * Why sometimes your “main theory” isn’t what ultimately wins the case ⚖️ CASE HIGHLIGHTS: * Early morning police pursuit of the wrong vehicle * Chase lasted ~90 seconds over 3.1 miles * Average speed: 124 MPH * Six intersections at high speed * No working dashcam from the pursuing officer * Catastrophic injuries to an innocent driver * Jury finds recklessness and awards $37.5 million 💡 KEY TAKEAWAY: Great trial lawyers don’t just tell the story—they control the pace at which the jury understands it.

Trial in Tractor Country: Turning a ‘$25K Case’ Into over a Half-Million Verdict

Takeaways * Nebraska's legal landscape can be challenging for plaintiffs. * Understanding the demographics of the jury is crucial. * Video evidence can significantly impact jury perception. * Pre-existing conditions must be framed as vulnerabilities, not weaknesses. * Effective storytelling is key in closing arguments. * Witness credibility can sway jury decisions. * Corporate doublespeak can backfire in court. * The emotional connection with the jury is vital for success. * Using analogies can clarify complex legal arguments. * Every trial is an opportunity to advocate for justice.

112 Hours of Surveillance, One DTI MRI, and a $20M Scaffold Law Verdict

The conversation explores: * How seasoned labor law litigators evaluate Labor Law §240(1) and §241(6) cases from day one * Why this “classic scaffold law case” was anything but simple * The strategic decision-making behind summary judgment, damages-only trial prep, and putting the plaintiff on first * How a late-developing DTI MRI transformed the case into a true TBI trial — and how the jury was taught to understand “invisible” brain injuries * Neutralizing 112 hours of defense surveillance by calling the investigator as a witness * Using coworker testimony, biomechanics, and initial presentation to anchor causation * Handling prior injuries, degeneration defenses, and credibility attacks head-on * Trial teamwork, co-counsel dynamics, and expert sequencing * Jury selection challenges, credibility battles, and the moments counsel knew they were winning Helena and Brian also break down the economics of union labor damages, life care planning without fluff, expert cross-examination wins, and the high-stakes settlement negotiations that stalled just days before verdict — with no high-low agreement in place. This episode is a masterclass in labor law trial strategy, TBI litigation, and how real verdicts are won — not assumed. If you try construction accident cases, damages-only trials, or brain injury cases, this is one you don’t want to miss.

Justice for the Boys: Brian Ward's $110.8M Fight for the TRUTH | Why we do this work

In this powerful episode of Trial Bible, host Gennady Voldz sits down with trial attorney Brian Ward to break down one of the most emotionally devastating civil cases in recent memory. A San Bernardino jury returned a $110.8 million verdict after finding that two young men were innocent victims of a deadly off-duty pursuit that ended in fire, catastrophic injury, and death. Brian walks listeners through the case of D’Son Woods and Glen Bolden, two young men whose lives were forever altered after being chased by an off-duty corrections officer who escalated a brief encounter into a high-speed pursuit. With no dashcam footage, no testimony from the officer, and major gaps in the timeline, Brian explains how his team built a liability case using policy manuals, focus groups, forensic reconstruction, and careful jury selection. The conversation explores the strategic decisions that shaped the trial, including how to handle damaging facts like alcohol, how to avoid over-villainizing a defendant when vicarious liability is at stake, and how jury instructions can make or break a case. Most importantly, Brian explains why securing a finding of zero percent comparative fault mattered more to the family than any dollar amount, and why some verdicts matter even before a check is written. WHAT YOU’LL LEARN * How to try a case when neither the driver nor the primary wrongdoer can testify * Why making a defendant look “too extreme” can destroy vicarious liability * How focus groups can reveal the exact line between credibility and overreach * How to handle bad facts without letting them become the trial * Why jury instructions can silently reshape deliberations * How to present damages when the story spans months of medical torture * Why verdicts can change a community’s narrative even when collection is delayed KEY MOMENTS - Introduction to D’Son Woods and Glen Bolden and the human story behind the case - The gas station encounter and the moment the pursuit begins - What the surveillance footage shows and what it never captures - The off-duty officer, the uniform windbreaker, and why it mattered - Focus group lessons that changed the liability strategy - Voir dire in San Bernardino and addressing alcohol head-on - The fight over peace officer authority and jury instructions - The phase one verdict and the zero percent negligence finding - The damages phase and how the jury arrived at nine figures - Why the verdict matters even as the case moves into appeal 🧰 PJI / LEGAL FRAMEWORK DISCUSSED * Vicarious liability and the going-and-coming rule * Ratification as a theory of employer responsibility * Comparative fault and zero negligence findings * Damages proof in bifurcated trials GUEST: Brian Ward— Attorney Website: https://www.tl4j.com/brian-ward/   HOST:  Gennady Voldz– Plaintiff’s Trial Attorney LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gennady-voldz-esq-74414943/   Voldz Law: https://voldzlaw.com/   CONTACT / SHARE A CASE:  trialbible@voldzlaw.com   📩 Subscribe & Share: If this episode resonated with you, forward it to a fellow trial lawyer or leave us a review. Because winning cases doesn’t just come from knowing the law—it comes from knowing the fight.

Record Justice: Inside 2023’s Highest Nursing-Home Verdict ft. Elliot Sinel (PHL §2801-d)

A 67-year-old nursing-home resident on Coumadin suffers a fall. No timely CT. A slow intracranial bleed. Sparse records (“s/p fall”). Defense says “coincidence.” Using PHL §2801-d, a disciplined verdict sheet, and visible causation, Elliott Sinel secures a $10M Bronx verdict. This is a masterclass on burden-shifting statutes, voir dire in elder-care cases, and the power of starting with their nurse. What you’ll learn * Deploy PHL §2801-d and plead death as an injury * Sequence witnesses to lock in departures through the defense nurse * Translate complex medicine into visuals jurors trust * Map witnesses to verdict-sheet questions—then close by walking them * Humanize damages when medical proof is thin Guest Elliott Sinel — Plaintiff’s Trial Attorney (Nursing-Home/Healthcare Negligence) LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elliot-sinel-14561b303/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/elliot-sinel-14561b303/] Website: https://www.nycbedsorelawyer.com/ [https://www.nycbedsorelawyer.com/] Host Gennady Voldz– Plaintiff’s Trial Attorney LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gennady-voldz-esq-74414943/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/gennady-voldz-esq-74414943/]   Voldz Law: https://voldzlaw.com/ [https://voldzlaw.com/] Connect Questions or case stories for the show? trialbible@voldzlaw.com