An Interview

 Ronald H. Clark Interview Published on: 30, Apr 2025

With over 27 years of experience in the King County Prosecutor's office, Professor Clark has built a prominent career in legal education and practice. A nationally recognized lecturer and author, he has shared his expertise at over 40 national continuing legal education courses and international training for the U.S. Department of Justice and State Department. Clark has also authored numerous influential books on advocacy, trial techniques, and legal strategy. Read Ronald H. Clark full interview by AllAuthor">Read full interview...</a></p>

What inspired you to pursue a career in law, particularly in prosecution and advocacy? My father inspired me to be a lawyer. He loved the legal profession, particularly enjoying being a trial lawyer. He was active in the community and as a state legislator. This inspired me to want to be a lawyer and actively engage in serving the community.

How has your experience in the King County Prosecutor’s Office shaped your approach to legal education? As a prosecutor, your job is to do justice and serve the public. While I was in the office, I strove to have an in-house continuing legal education program that taught the role of the prosecutor as well as ethics and other prosecutorial skills.

What led you to transition from practicing law to teaching and training future legal professionals? There was a natural transition from practicing law to teaching. While I was in the prosecutor’s office, I engaged in training of deputy prosecutors. This included not only periodic in-office continuing legal education sessions but also designing an annual statewide continuing legal education course for prosecutors. After two and a half decades in the prosecutor’s office, it was time to do full time what I found to be rewarding – training prosecutors.

Can you share a particularly memorable case or courtroom experience that influenced your perspective on trial advocacy? One murder trial comes to mind. The murder-victim was a transient and a Native American and the defendant was a Caucasian. The defense contended that the state’s sole corroborating witness, who testified against the defendant, had committed the murder. The takeaway is that an all-white jury can set aside bias or prejudice they may have in reaching a just verdict.

What do you find most rewarding about teaching law students and training attorneys? I enjoy sharing my experiences and passing on what knowledge I have gained about practicing law to the students and lawyers. It is gratifying to follow their careers and see that they succeed, particularly if the former student becomes a teacher.

How has legal education evolved over the years, and what changes do you believe are still needed? I’ll focus on the post-law school education of prosecutors. One of the greatest advancements was the establishment of the National College of District Attorneys and the Career Prosecutors’ course that was conducted over a few weeks every year. The Career course was federally funded, and state and local prosecutor’s offices could send their attorneys there at no cost. Unfortunately, a few years back Congress decided not to fund it. It should be reinstituted.

What are the most common mistakes young attorneys make in pretrial and trial advocacy, and how can they avoid them? I’ve written books on both trial advocacy and pretrial advocacy and at the end of most chapters there is a checklist of things to do and not do. For example, the “Creating a Coordinated Discovery Plan” chapter has a checklist of over three and a half pages of things a lawyer should do and not do when do the following things among others: drafting interrogatories (e.g., pose questions that are unambiguous) and responding to requests for production (e.g., object to irrelevant, privileged, or unduly burdensome or annoying requests for production). To avoid mistakes, new lawyers can adhere to the checklists in the chapters.In your view, what are the essential skills that every trial lawyer must master?I’ve written a whole book on this. The bottom line is that you need to be credible, have a credible case theory, and be able to project that credibility to the fact finder.

What motivated you to write books on advocacy, jury selection, and legal visuals? My books are an outgrowth of both my experiences as a lawyer and as a teacher of law students and lawyers, and as a manager of and presenter at continuing legal education courses. Besides having the pleasure of having attended a myriad of trial advocacy courses, I served as the Director of Training with the National College of District Attorneys and as the Senior Training Counsel at the National Advocacy Center in South Carolina. In those two positions, I designed, managed, and taught at the courses.

How do you approach making complex legal topics accessible to readers and practitioners? A good approach to making complex legal topics accessible is to break the subject down into easily digestible bites. For example, if the subject were the evidentiary predicates for visual evidence, such as animations, demonstrative evidence, or real evidence, I’d begin with the fundamentals, such as covering whether the evidence is relevant, authentic, and admissible under Evidence Rule 403. Then, I would explore the evidentiary predicates for common types of evidence, such as demonstrative evidence, photographs, models, simulations and so on.

In Eradicating American “Prosecutor Misconduct”, what are the key solutions you propose for improving prosecutorial ethics? Providing prosecutors and defense counsel with the Handbook on Eradicating American “Prosecutor Misconduct” is one solution. The Handbook is designed to be a guidebook for both prosecutors and defense counsel. The Handbook spells out for prosecutors what a prosecutor is prohibited by law and the ethical rules from saying at trial so that prosecutors can avoid missteps, and it provides defense counsel with the grounds and the legal authority for an objection, a motion for mistrial, or an appeal if the trial judge overrules the objection or denies the motion.

Which of your books do you consider the most essential for aspiring trial attorneys, and why? I would recommend that aspiring trial attorneys consider Pretrial Advocacy, Sixth Edition, and Trial Advocacy, Fifth Edition, both published by Aspen because they provide comprehensive coverage of all aspects of pretrial and trial advocacy.

How has technology transformed trial advocacy, and what tools should modern attorneys be proficient in? Technology has enabled today’s trial attorneys to visually communicate their cases to juries is ways that were unimaginable a few years back. When the case is communicated visually, such as with an animation or a scene diagram, it causes the fact finder to be more engaged. Also, effective visual presentation helps the fact finder retain and understand the information. Today, trial lawyers can use visuals from opening statement through closing argument.

What role do visuals and storytelling play in winning a case, and how can lawyers effectively use them in the courtroom? Visuals play a key role in communicating the case to the factfinder. For example, if an expert witness testifies with the aid of visuals the witness’s testimony is more likely to be understood and accepted. Expert witnesses are teachers who teach the factfinders. Examples of expert witness visuals include animations, medical illustrations, and computer slideshows.

J.D.Catney interview

Design Your Cross-Examination with Closing Argument on Your Mind

 

Cross-examination and closing argument are inextricably intertwined. Cross-examination should be crafted with closing argument in mind. The primary purpose of cross is to gain concessions supporting your case theory. In closing, you argue that those concessions prove your case. 

A secondary purpose of cross is to impeach the witness, and in closing you argue that the witness was not credible. For example, you can discuss how the witness was impeached with a prior inconsistent statement.

Our cross-examination should avoid asking the ultimate question.  For instance, we wouldn’t ask, “You’re biased, aren’t you?” The obvious response to this is that it will only elicit a denial. Rather we gather information on cross that will lead the jury to reach the ultimate conclusion that we can argue in summation.  For example, on cross, gain concessions that show that the witness and the party that called the witness were friends, such as the long time they knew each other, the trips they took together, and so on.  Wait until closing to argue the ultimate conclusion that the cross was designed to reveal—that the witness was a close friend of the opposing party. In closing we close the loop—we argue the point approached on cross.

The process for designing a cross-examination that will elicit information that can be used in your closing argument begins by formulating a tentative closing based on the other side’s tentative case theory. 

To illustrate the process, let’s look at self-defense from a prosecutor’s perspective and see how cross and closing are intertwined. The defense case theory for self-defense is confession and avoidance. The defendant shot, stabbed, struck the victim, but he did so in self-defense.  The defense strategy frequently is aimed at three objectives: (1) to portray the victim as a threatening, menacing figure; (2) to characterize the defendant as a peaceful victim, and (3) to appeal to juror apathy—the victim deserved what he got.  It is common for the third objective to be the primary one and the self-defense theory to serve as a veil for this real defense.

An advantage of self-defense for the prosecutor is that it normally concedes certain elements of the crime:  defendant shot the victim; defendant intended to shoot the victim (although often the defendant may couple self-defense with accident—she was coming at me and the gun went off accidentally).  Cross-examination can be used to elicit these concessions, and then, in argument, they can be argued to prove the crime and the issues can be narrowed to self-defense.

The crux of the prosecution's response to self-defense is that the law of self-defense applies only to certain people (non aggressors) and only under narrowly defined circumstances (only so much force as is necessary, and so on) and the defendant and the circumstances do not fit the definition of self-defense.  Regarding attacks on the victim (character and prior acts of misconduct), the prosecution seeks to exclude inadmissible factual and opinion testimony and to pull the sting on any residual evidence tainting the victim.  Concerning the defendant, the state offers relevant, probative admissible prior acts of misconduct and threats by the defendant and on cross-examination impeaches any character witness offered to bolster the defendant's reputation for peacefulness.  To counter appeals to juror apathy, the state's theory and strategy are to persuade the fact finder to follow the law no matter how despicable the victim—self-defense for the community.

An approach to attacking self-defense in argument is to first discuss the seriousness of the crime, go through the elements of the crime using the board to show that when the law is applied to the facts, the crime was committed and then narrow the case to the single issue of whether the defendant killed the victim in lawful self-defense.  Some facts used in this phase of argument to show the case has been proved and to narrow the issues can be those elicited from the defense witnesses on cross.

Next, the prosecutor can argue that the law only allows certain persons under a narrow set of circumstances to take another human being's life.  Place the court's aggressor and self-defense instructions on the board and one by one show why, based on the evidence, the defendant is not entitled to the defense of self-defense - was not lawfully entitled to take a life.  Careful case preparation and direct and cross examination should have developed the evidence to make some or all of the following argument as the prosecution reviews the legal requirements of self-defense.

When the anticipated defense is self-defense, the prosecution will concentrate, both during the case-in-chief and cross, on establishing facts supporting the proposition that the defendant is not entitled to what the law defines as self-defense.

Though the defendant may claim self-defense at trial, the evidence may support an argument that the claim is altogether bogus. Defendant's conduct and words after the assault/homicide may be inconsistent with her trial claim of self-defense.  Facts that may be elicited on cross-examination and may prove this include: (1) defendant's statement to the police did not claim self-defense; (2) defendant fled the scene; (3) defendant concealed the body, or (4) defendant used a false name when arrested.

Any facts showing that the victim was not moving toward or verbally or physically threatening the defendant before the defendant attacked the victim support the argument that it was not self defense.  Such evidence may come from: eyewitness accounts of not only what they saw and heard happen but also of what did not happen; expert testimony regarding the injury to victim including the direction (e.g., downward angle), location (e.g., back) and proximity of the weapon to the victim (e.g., contact wound); clothing showing location of entry of weapon; and a display of the wound in court and/or showing of it in photographs.

In argument, these facts may be argued to support the position that defendant did not act in self-defense. The prosecutor on cross-examination of the defendant can seek concessions to these facts.  If the defendant denies the fact, this denial creates a conflict between strong evidence and the defendant's story.  For example, defendant claims on cross that the victim was facing him when he fired, but the physical evidence shows an entry wound in the victim's back.

If the defendant was the aggressor and provoked the victim into responding, the law on self-defense may preclude the defendant from using self-defense. Evidence that might be gleaned from a defense witness and marshaled into an argument that the defendant was the aggressor includes: defendant's prior confrontation with the victim resulting in a motive to get even; defendant's threats toward the victim; defendant's acts suggesting she initiated the contact with the victim just before the assault/homicide; defendant was with others when he confronted the victim; victim's attempt to avoid or retreat from the defendant; disparity in size, armed v. unarmed, making defendant's claim the victim was the initiator implausible; injuries to the victim - defensive wounds; and absence of injury to the defendant.

Evidence that may be developed on cross to support an argument refuting defendant's claim of reasonable fear of injury includes: same as those supporting an argument the defendant was the aggressor—particularly these facts help: that the victim was outnumbered, smaller, less injured compared with the defendant; absence of weapons or inoperability or inaccessibility of a weapon or by the victim can be used not only to rebut the defendant's claim he believed the victim was reaching into his pocket or whatever for a weapon but also to show the defendant is lying; the scene may provide evidence that the defendant was in surroundings conducive to him not being in fear, but it also may have just the opposite result; and cross can explore avenues that the defendant could have used to leave although the law places no duty on the defendant to retreat.

Facts that can be argued to show the defendant used excessive, unnecessary force. The victim injuries that go beyond that necessary to stop the claimed attack by the victim establish that the defendant went beyond what was necessary.  It may be argued that assuming what the defendant said on direct and cross is true (e.g., that the victim verbally provoked him and used his bare hands), the defendant's response was to use excessive force and he is not entitled to self-defense. The nature of the weapon used may be inherently excessive (e.g., gun versus bare hands).  Also, the character of the weapon (pounds of pressure to fire the revolver) may support an argument that rebuts the defense claim that the gun accidentally discharged.  Similarly, location of the wound (e.g., between the eyes) refutes the claim of accident.

The defendant's ego, background, demeanor and testimony may provide a basis for argument that she was not in fear and/or was the aggressor. On cross, the weapon should be placed in the defendant's hand so the jury has a picture of him as he was when he attacked the victim.  Defendant should be asked to demonstrate for the jury how the incident happened. Some defendants will have backgrounds in martial arts, and so on and wish to brag or show off.  Cross should permit the defendant full latitude to boast and closing would focus on this prowess in arguing that the fear was unreasonable.

Self-defense may be just a veil hiding the real defense that the victim deserved it and who cares.  To meet this defense, the prosecution will focus on the rights of all people—no matter who—to the protection of the law against murder/assault and restricting when a person is justified in assaulting or killing another. Although the defense may never articulate this defense, the prosecuting should counteract it—especially in jury selection and in closing. During the selection process, those negative aspects of the victim should be acknowledged and the jurors asked whether they would still follow the law. The concern about juror apathy normally should be addressed by the prosecutor in closing argument.  It may best be left for rebuttal to respond to the defense attack on the victim.