A former Denver police officer was never held accountable for shooting into a crowd, injuring six bystanders. That is, not until a civil rights suit brought by Siddhartha Rathod, name partner at Rathod Mohamedbhai, the largest civil rights firm in the state, and John Lee, name partner at Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers. In its $20 million verdict, the jurors sent a message that “you need to take responsibility,” Siddhartha explains. In Part I of this case breakdown, host Keith Fuicelli (John’s partner) moderates the discussion to explore how the trial team delivered their message. Come back in January for Part 2, when the three young attorneys who handled much of this case will join Keith to reveal how they prepared and won the “monster” verdict.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Siddhartha Rathod | LinkedIn

☑️ Rathod Mohamedbhai on LinkedIn | Instagram | X | YouTube

☑️ John Lee | LinkedIn

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

1. Siddhartha and John outline the procedural landmines in civil rights cases: Bringing a federal 1983 claim can result in removal to federal court, while bringing a tort claim can expose clients to a Trinity hearing and potential fee/cost liability at the beginning of the case.
2. The July 2022 incident occurred in downtown Denver when police pursued a man who was wearing a hoodie with a bulge in the pocket. As that man kept reaching into his pocket, the officers became concerned that he wielded a weapon.
3. The officers’ suspect darted behind a car and, when cornered, tossed away his weapon. Down the block, Officer Ramos fired at the suspect and injured six bystanders, who became the team’s clients.
4. Despite having a half dozen different body cams and a halo cam, details of the event remained in dispute because the cameras capture different frames per second.
5. The trial team did use video showing that the defendant didn’t act reasonably, including how he had his flashlight pointed in the wrong direction.
6. Siddhartha and John made the strategic decision to have younger attorneys—many in their first five years of practice—handle 75% of the trial. As Siddhartha explains, senior attorneys wouldn't have done as good a job as the younger team members because this was their first trial, and they were extraordinarily well prepared.
7. “They weren't outliers. They weren't radicals,” Siddhartha says of the jurors. “They were enraged that Denver never held the officer accountable.” Result: $20 million verdict.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

Welcome to the Colorado

Trial Lawyer Connection,

where Colorado trial lawyers share

insights from their latest cases. Join me,

Keith Fuicelli, as we uncover

the stories, strategies,

and lessons from recent Colorado trials

to help you and your clients achieve

justice in the courtroom. The

pursuit of justice starts now.

Welcome back everyone to another episode

of the Colorado Trial Lawyer Connection

podcast. This episode is truly special

for a couple of reasons. The first,

I'm not in my usual location,

so I've got different things.

I think I sound a little bit different,

but it's fun to be in front of this

ship that has great meaning to me.

Happy to be here.

And this episode is special because

it's got my law partner John Lee and our

good friend, an amazing trial

lawyer, Siddhartha Rathod,

to talk about a truly

amazing and righteous

$20 million civil rights

verdict involving a police

shooting involving the Denver

Police Department. So with that,

welcome John and Siddhartha.

Thanks Keith.

So John's been on before. We've heard

a little bit about John's story,

but one of the things that I

do like to do is Siddhartha,

tell us a little bit about your

journey to becoming a trial lawyer.

Do you always know you

wanted to be a trial lawyer?

No. After undergraduate school

I went into the Marine Corps.

After the Marine Corps I went to law

school and I'd never met a lawyer

besides military lawyers,

so I really didn't know that

much when I attended law school

and it was kind of a journey of trying

to figure out what I was passionate

about. When I graduated law

school, I became a public defender.

I loved it. It was an amazing

opportunity. From there,

I went to a small boutique civil

rights firm and about 15 years ago,

my business partner ER and

I formed Rathod Mohamedbhai

and we're now the largest civil

rights law firm in the state.

Your law firm is well recognized,

and I'm sure any of our listeners

understand the amazing work that y'all

do. But before we kind of jump into that,

I'm a little bit curious about

your experience in the Marines.

My father was in the Navy for

25 years and I know Nick Row's,

a big military guy,

came out and did military out of

school before going to law school.

How do you think that

impacted you and your outlook?

Is that something you would highly

recommend to those people that always have

kids ship 'em off to marines?

I was stubborn. I went

into the Marine Corps.

It was great in that it

paid for law school for me,

and I think we can all have

different agreements or

disagreements about the military,

what the military was being used for.

I was very fortunate in

my time in the service.

I was on active duty from 99 through 2004,

but I think there's a lot of avenues to

being a great attorney if you want to go

to the military and serve,

great. If you told great,

that's the politically put answer.

Well, I like it. In this

charged climate, you have to,

we all have to be so careful

about what we say at all times,

and so that's a very politically correct

response about the military and the

Marines. So tell us a little

bit, Siddhartha about,

for those of us that know a

little bit to be dangerous when

it comes to civil rights cases involving

excessive force,

could you give us a two minute summary of

when a claim of excessive

force becomes actionable and

viable and what listeners should be

looking for if someone calls their office

and says, Hey, a police officer just

beat up my grandma or something.

So I think whatever you're

suing the government, it's hard.

The government only lets itself be

sued when it wants to. In Colorado,

a few years back, we passed the

Police Accountability Act SB two 17,

and that allows us to

nowadays bring cases in state

court,

which is a significant

advantage because a jury of that

police department gets to decide what

happens to that police department.

I think that's important and that's

how all civil and criminal cases work.

So why shouldn't police

accountability be done the same?

It also eliminates a doctrine

called qualified immunity,

which is just a silly doctrine

that in essence insulates

police officers from

liability. With that in mind,

it's important to remember that if

you're going to do one of these cases,

talk to somebody, talk to John,

call me and better understand

these cases because if

you bring a federal claim

you can get removed to federal court.

There may be reasons why you want to bring

that though. If you bring a tort

claim like a tort of assault,

you can get trinity here against you

and have a hearing all the way at the

beginning of your case, which if you lose,

you can expose your

client to fees and costs.

There are a lot of weird procedural

issues that can happen in these

cases.

And so you want to be kind of careful

to go to directly to your question of

what's a case? I think attorneys

should be looking at it and saying,

this is kind of outrageous. What happened

here? Hey, this doesn't seem right,

this seems wrong.

And that's the first step is so if

you're watching it and you're like,

this doesn't seem right, this seems

wrong, then call somebody and say, Hey,

can you take a look at this?

Is this something that makes sense?

You've never done one of these cases?

Partner with somebody, call John, call me,

partner with somebody on the case

and work with them and learn the

procedure and the law on this

area because I will tell you,

in every case, you will almost certainly

get a 12 B six motion to dismiss.

You'll always get motions for

summary judgment. Every slip up,

every procedural issue is going to come

up because they will litigate these

cases to the ends of the earth.

And so you've got to be prepared,

and they're expensive experts, which

experts you want and things like that.

So at a minimum,

getting someone who is willing to

just talk to you and advise you,

we're always happy to talk to a

fellow attorney is a great idea.

If you're looking at these cases.

And I can sort of share our

firsthand experience because gosh,

more than a decade or so ago

when our firm had been around,

not a huge amount of time, we had one

of those cases, like you just mentioned,

walk in the door, which was

like, holy cow, this is awful.

What we are being told, this is

outrageous. And so what did we do?

We called your partner Q and worked

with you guys and achieved a very just

result in something that maybe

we could have figured it out,

but at what cost? So I just want

to echo what Siddhartha said,

that on any of these cases,

it feels like there are so

many procedural landmines.

Every single corner is a trap where

there's a wrong mistake to be made,

can cost your client the case could not

agree more to reaching out to qualified

lawyers in these cases that do it all day.

So with that in the context of, holy cow,

this is sort of shocking,

what happened, John,

why don't you tell us the facts

of this case and what happened?

Yeah, sure. So summer

downtown in Denver,

there had been an increase in

violent crime and persons crimes,

that kind of thing.

So the Denver police decided

they needed an increased police

presence at 2:00 AM basically from one

to 2:00 AM when the bars were letting out

what they call Outc crowd.

And so on this night,

our six clients had been

out enjoying themselves in

lower downtown,

and the bars were closing as they

were all getting out of the bars.

And at the same time,

there was a man named Jordan

Wadi who was downtown as well.

And the police claimed that

they saw him assault someone,

so the police wanted to talk to him. So

there were -- Siddhartha what was it?

Five different officers, maybe

six that converged on the scene,

tried to apprehend Mr. Wattie

or at least contact him.

He got evasive. There were times where

he'd stop and he put his hands up,

but then he'd dart behind a car.

Lemme stop you real quick. Is

all of this on body cam? Yes.

So what's happening isn't really in

dispute and you could almost play a

video of all the events leading up to.

It. That's funny that you put it that way.

That was sort of one of our running jokes

in the trial is that there were half a

dozen different body cams,

there was a halo cam,

and yet there was still a lot of dispute

about what happened because the body

cams do a certain so

many frames per second,

and the halo is a different

frame per second. Yeah.

So regardless of the fact that there

were half a dozen different angles and

cameras,

there were still plenty of stuff for

the lawyers to argue about factually.

But in any event,

what I'm telling you are facts

that I don't think are in dispute.

But what was interesting is it's July

and Mr. Wattie is wearing a hoodie and

he's got a bulge in the pocket of his

hoodie, and that's concerning the police.

And he keeps reaching into that pocket.

And so at some point the

police get him cornered

and he reaches into

his hoodie pocket has the brilliant

idea to throw the firearm that he's

got on his person away so that

it's not on him. The problem was,

so he had ducked behind a car and now

he's on the sidewalk in front of the

Denver beer hall,

and he's got an Officer Roland

who is right in front of him,

and then he's got Officer

Ramos who is down the sidewalk.

And Officer Ramos at the time is

behind a car watching what's going down

with Jordan Watty. So Jordan

Watty reaches into his pocket,

and of course this gets all the police

officers concerned. Weapons get drawn,

they're of course giving him

commands, show us your hands,

all this kind of stuff. He's not

listening, so he throws the weapon. Well,

when he does that, officer Roland,

who is facing Mr.

Wadi with the beer hall behind Wadi,

opens fire and hits Wadi.

Our defendant, officer Ramos,

who is down the block behind a car, has

now left the car and is in the sidewalk,

but he's got the profile

view of Jordan Wattie,

but then down the sidewalk from

Jordan Wattie is the Outc crowd.

Everyone coming out of the bars,

there's a food truck down there,

there's a lot of people

standing at a food truck.

Officer Ramos makes the decision to

open fire on Jordan Wattie as well.

And he fires two bullets that Ms.

Jordan Wattie and go into the crowd and

injured six people, our six clients.

Okay, got it. So Siddhartha,

what are police officers supposed

to do in that circumstance?

In other words, what did

Officer Ramos do wrong?

So both John and I have experience

in weapons handling and every

single officer,

every expert testified regardless

of whether it was their witness or

ours, that they are trained.

And it is ingrained in them that

the final rule of weapon safety

is to know your target and what's

beyond, beyond your target.

We were able then to show the

DPD Denver Police Department

operation manual, and again, there

was still a lot of debate about it,

but it talks about how you can't shoot

when you're going to endanger other

people. The only exception to that,

if it's the person's

actually shooting at you,

and here we were also able to

show that when Officer Ramos fired

Mr. Wadi was already either falling

on the ground or on the ground for the

second shot,

and that Officer Ramos of just

fear fired here towards a crowd.

So we were able to distinguish

Officer Ramos' conduct from the other

officer's conduct because no

reasonable officer would have fired in

that position.

It was just exceedingly dangerous.

What happened was six people that

got shot and we were able to show

that those six people were

shot by Officer Ramos,

he obviously denied even though he had

pled guilty criminally to shooting them,

denied that he shot them.

And what should a reasonable officer

do in that situation? Not shoot,

provide, cover, wait, these are the

things these officers are trained to do.

And even his fellow officers talked

about how those are the things

they were trained to do. That's

what a reasonable officer should do.

We were also able to break down the

video and show a lot of really great

kind of things that showed that

Officer Ramos was not acting reasonably

how a reasonable officer should not.

He had his flashlight

pointed the wrong direction,

and we were able to point that out in the

trial and have his other officers look

at that and question them about whether

what would happen when you point a

flashlight towards you, how insane that

would be. They're like, that's insane.

And then show 'em the video.

And they're like, oh yeah,

that's insane. So some

comical moments in the trial,

which is always fun when you have those

little tidbits that you don't bring out

until the trial you don't talk about

until you're right in front of the jury

and it's just so comically

insane. Fortunately,

the harm that was caused was so

severe that when you juxtapose

those two,

that's how we get to a nearly

$20 million jury verdict.

Yeah. Obviously the jury of the peers,

being people in the Denver community,

do you take it from that verdict?

Maybe this is a dumb obvious question

that Denver jurors are sort of fed up with

some of what they're seeing

from the Denver police.

I think all jurors are kind of fed up.

Obviously, you got to pick your jury.

There is some skill and there's some luck

involved in that pool is I think these

were normal jurors. They weren't out

outliners, they weren't radicals.

I think they looked at what happened

and they looked at this situation,

they were just enraged by it, and

they were enraged by the conduct.

They were enraged that Denver

never held the officer accountable.

They were enraged by all these different

types of facts that we were able to

bring out. And rightfully so,

the conduct of Officer Ramero

was shocking and it was offensive

and it caused serious, serious harm

to the public. And I think the public,

both in the actual ward of

injury damages as well as the

punitive damages which

were designed to punish,

sent that message to this officer and

to the city that we won't tolerate

this type of behavior.

So one question that comes to mind

involves the training piece that you

mentioned, because I'm sort

of envisioning I've never,

I should say I very rarely shot a firearm,

Siddhartha, you were in the military,

so I'm sure you have a

lot of training in that.

But I would think that it

would be instinctual if

someone starts firing and I've

got a gun in my hand, I'm probably

going to start firing too,

almost as a reactionary response.

So is that something that the police

specifically train in military?

So you're ingrained that just because

somebody else is firing that you don't

fire? Maybe it's a dumb question.

It's not a dumb question

and I'll field it,

but they have specific

rules of engagement and

parameters as far as when they

are able to use deadly force.

And so we were able to argue that this

didn't even meet those criteria for

him to use deadly force. But then

also, like Siddhartha was saying,

I mean we were able to bring out through

almost every single law enforcement

witness that they are ingrained

with the safety rules of handling

firearms. And the most important of which

is know your target and what's beyond.

And anecdotally,

anytime I've talked to a

friend of mine that hunts

or knows anything about firearms, the

minute I say the safety rules, they go,

oh yeah, know your target and beyond.

And these are people that

these police officers,

they use firearm or they handle

firearms on a daily basis.

And so it's even more important

that they follow those safety rules.

And they think that going back to what

Siddhartha was saying about the jury

being outraged,

it wasn't just that he

flagrantly violated that rule,

but then the response to

it of basically like, well,

I was still justified in shooting at him,

even though there were people behind him.

What was Officer Ram's testimony that

maybe if there had been important people

in that crowd, he would've held

up and not fired. So presidents,

senators, people like that,

maybe that would've been a worse

backdrop than what he actually had.

I think when the defendant doesn't

take responsibility for what we can all

say is just, come on, you

pled criminally guilty,

take some responsibility,

and when you don't and you don't

have your client take responsibility

for what happened, you're going

to get these type of verdicts.

You're going to get these big punitives

that are designed to punish because

Officer Ramos never saw a single

day in jail. If this was one of us,

we would be incarcerated

for the rest of our lives.

Officer Ramos wasn't firing. He was

allowed to resign Officer Ramos,

even though it didn't

come out to the jury,

received back pay almost a year

of vacation and then allowed to

resign.

So I think when a jury keeps seeing

and then keeps hearing the defendant

himself say, I didn't do anything wrong.

I think that's where jurors kind

of get set and want to use the

putative damages as a way

to send a message that, no,

this isn't okay. You need

to take responsibility.

No one's ever taken responsibility

for Officer Ram's conduct,

and Officer Ramos certainly did it.

And so I think those are the trial

skills that John was able to bring to the

case and really kind of

emphasize to the jury like, look,

this man isn't taking responsibility and.

Yeah, I understand that the guilty

plea was admitted to the jury.

How did that come in?

So it was a form of impeachment when

he said he didn't shoot these people.

Then you get to bring in that.

I also think those maybe a small error,

not that it impacted it significantly.

So when a person pleads

guilty to an offense

and the elements of what they pled guilty

to are the same as what they're being

civilly brought to you could

be stopped from arguing that

you didn't do this.

So we believe he actually should have

been stopped from being able to argue that

he didn't shoot them. You

would still have defenses.

But the judge kind of split the baby a

little bit here and went with a lot us to

bring in his impeachment.

Is that this is bringing back

flashbacks to my criminal days,

which thankfully are 20 years

in the rear view mirror.

Is that like an Alfred plea?

You could go in and plead to

something to try to avoid having any

ramifications in a civil case?

Yeah. He didn't take an Alfred plea.

Okay.

Yeah.

So he didn't take a plea that would

not admit to the actual liability here.

He pled guilty.

So we were actually able to go in and

go through what he actually said to the

judge, what his rights were

that he gave up to a judge.

And I think that was a small factor.

I don't think it would've made that

much of a difference in the end.

I think the jury, they

weren't out that long.

They didn't need even that criminal piece.

Obviously it should have come in, but

when he's saying, Nope, I didn't do this,

but I pled guilty, I think the judge

let it in for the impeachment purposes.

And John, were you telling me a story?

Was it Siddhartha's cross with the

flashlight that you were saying,

or was it one of

Siddhartha's team members?

That was the whole issue

with the flashlight when the

officer had it backwards.

Tell our listeners about that

story. I thought it was comical.

Yeah, it was great because

Siddhartha, who is, and by the way,

Keith, I have to say that the

other lawyers on this case,

it was a pleasure trying it with them.

Siddhartha has got an

extremely talented team,

and they were great to try a case with.

And I would echo what you said earlier,

that if you've ever got a civil

reach out to those guys.

They are the experts and they

are a pleasure to work with.

And we really had a fun time

at trial. But that being said,

watching Siddhartha direct one

of the officers and have him

basically criticize our defendant,

officer Ramos for the way that he handled

the flashlight without knowing he was

criticizing Officer Ramos for the

way he was handling a flashlight was

masterful. Siddhartha walked him

through the proper procedures and said,

how would you hold the flashlight?

Oh, so if they held it like this,

that would not be okay, or you

wouldn't authorize that you,

the officer was scoffing at it rolling

his eyes. It was like, oh, no way.

No way. And then Siddhartha, of course,

then showed him the video of Officer

Ramos with the flashlight backwards,

and he is like, yep, that's

what he's doing. So yeah,

it was masterful just the way that he

walked him right into it turned what

should have been a

favorable witness for Ramos.

It was one of his colleagues into

a very favorable witness for us,

unbeknownst to the officer, which

is what made it so brilliant.

Siddhartha, how do you balance injecting

a little bit of humor and having

fun in trial in a case that's this

serious with the injuries you're dealing

with?

I mean, I think in any case, you

have to have some fun with it.

You have to have a connection with

the jury. You're watching the jurors.

This was day seven or five

or whatever it was of trial.

It wasn't the first thing we

did. We set the right tone.

We had got 'em to the point where

jurors had seen the seriousness of what

was going on, seen the trauma or

clients had been up there crying.

They knew how serious it is. It

doesn't mean you can't interject,

do something in a not comical way,

but in a way that's kind of like

really, there's only one conclusion.

And this is just, it's just crazy

because at the end, the officer,

you don't ask that greedy question.

The officer just sat there and kind of

just had his mouth open because you don't

want to get him the opportunity to

explain that. You don't want to ask the

greedy question at the

trough kind of thing.

And so it can be a little

funny in that way where,

because all the jurors know

what you're talking about,

the jurors have seen it and the

officer just isn't as aware of all the

details in the video.

They haven't spent hundreds and hundreds

of hours examining the facts of the

case, dozens of hours watching the video.

Everyone on the team did.

So they're not as aware of every

little minutia that we are.

So you can kind of walk 'em into that.

So it's fun when you got to do

it and it works. It's great.

It doesn't always work, dad. You

got to pivot and try something else.

So one of the things that I was most

impressed with the verdict in this

case is I'm assuming that that's

something that you all talked about in

advance,

because I'm correct that he was on the

verdict form as a non-party at fault.

Is that right?

Yeah.

So how did you frame the

closing to get a result of

zero comparative fault with that guy?

Well, me did the closing one

of the attorneys in the office,

and I think that's something

really important to talk about.

I think John and I were

there to do more advising and

to be kind of, I'm at my 50

something jury trial, and John,

I couldn't imagine what number you're at.

And we were there more to

support the real trial team.

And Omeed,

Sierra and Chris for my office

did just a phenomenal job from

day one of litigating this case,

starting this case, investigating it,

experts depositions everything all the

way through trial and now post-trial

motions and appellate

issues and things like that.

So they did the work, they

did all the hard work.

I think John and I were really there.

We handled smaller witnesses and

we were there kind of to guide

and be a sounding board and

suggest avenues that the

real trial attorneys got

to actually then say, Nope,

I don't want to do that. I want to do

this. Or, okay, that's a good idea.

Let's adopt that. And so we took a

couple witnesses off their plates,

but all the big hard work

was done by the team.

So they came up with a strategy.

They came up with how to argue that and

how to ask for the damages and break

down those damages.

They were the ones staying after

John and I would go home at a

reasonable hour after

dinner, seven, eight o'clock,

they would still be

here until one o'clock,

two o'clock in the morning getting ready

for those openings and closings and

things like that. We would sit and

practice jury selection with them,

and then they would stay and work on it

and enhance it and take the feedback.

So I think those are the people we should

really get the credit for this win and

not John and I.

Yeah, for sure. For sure. And

they're an extremely talented bunch.

But as far as how we argued it, I think

Omeed put most of the blame on Ramos,

and I think he did concede

maybe a small number for

Jordan Wadi because he is an

idiot. But that was basically it.

But Jordan Wattie didn't plead

guilty to shooting these people.

Officer Ramos did. And I think that

was really the tack that Omeed took.

Yeah, I think that was exactly it. And

also talking about like, look, yes,

they were there because, but

Wadi was throwing the gun away.

And then he showed these stills of when

the officers fired and the gun is all

the way over here in the air.

And then talked about how your

comparative fault was between Ramos and

Wadi, not between Wadi

and the other officers.

So let's talk about where Ramos

was when he shot the evidence

really made it clear that where Ramos

said he was shooting just wasn't true,

just couldn't have been true.

And the expert evidence that we were able

to bring in and that the team brought

in showed that it just couldn't be true.

And so once you identified that this is

where Ramos shot, it's kind like, well,

how could Ramos be at fault?

He's lied on the ground,

the old gun in his hand having

already been shot multiple times,

and then this is when Ramo shut. So

I think juxtapositioning, the photos,

the closing and up all

the evidence is how me,

Sierra and Chris were able

to kind of freak that out.

One thing I sort of sense from you,

Siddhartha, is this sure seems like,

and I know from speaking with

John, this seemed like a fun trial.

I don't know if that's insensitive

given what your clients went through,

but that sure seems like a fun trial.

Did you guys have fun

when you were in there?

I think the attorneys always

have fun when we're in trial.

I enjoy being in trial.

You can tell John is just natural

in the courtroom and he's just

exceedingly comfortable in the

courtroom. So I think all trials are fun.

It's hard work, but it's fun.

But I think this trial was maybe a

little bit even more fun for John and I

because we got to kind of sit back and

be the old people in the courtroom and

just the team did the hard work,

everything in preparation for this trial,

coordinating paralegals,

coordinating the witness,

and it's the attorneys dialing it all in.

John and I really just got to

be sounding boards and push back

on different ideas and help

develop this next generation

of amazing trial attorneys.

And I think it's something that all

of us who are maybe in past our prime

or in our prime or whatever

you want to call it,

we should be taking a heart that there

is a next generation of attorneys who can

do an amazing job. You just got to

give them the opportunity and the right

training to do it. If they're trained,

they're working hard given the

opportunity. I did a trial,

this was my third trial in 12

months. And one of the big mistakes,

we got a seven figure

verdict in the first one,

and we got a seven figure verdict

in the second one as well.

But I think we would've

got more if I didn't close,

I should have let one of

my other attorneys close.

I had a larger role in that

trial, and I took on closing.

And I think if the jury would've heard

a different voice and a different

sound, hearing the case from a different

perspective, we would've gotten war.

Yes, I am running, I quarterbacking this.

It's something I learned there that I

think I'm going to carry through from

every trial that we don't need to be

the ones who do it. We may have more

experience,

but you've got to let these other

attorneys have this opportunity.

And I don't think John or I would've

done as good of a job as they

did, just flat out say we

wouldn't have done as good trips.

They were way more prepared

than we could ever have been.

This was the first trial for some

of 'em. So they were so prepared.

Every question, every impeachment,

every idea was thought out.

And so I think you just got to let these

newer attorneys take the leading role

and we got to sit with the advisors.

That's a great point. If

you remember Siddhartha,

there was a point where you and

I were talking about me doing the

liability part of the closing

and the Omeed arguing damages.

And then we decided that, I think it

was Omeed that stepped up and said,

I think the jury needs to hear

one voice, not two. He said,

and I want that voice to be mine. I

said, okay, all right. I'll tell you,

I'm glad that we did it that way

because he's a brilliant worder.

He's great at arguing. And like you said,

he spent way more time running

through his arguments and crafting his

arguments than I would

have. And it really showed,

and I think that's a big reason

why we got the verdict that we did.

75% Of this trial was done by attorneys

who've been practicing less than five

years. So Chris did jury selection,

Sierra did opening Sierra,

Chris and Omeed did the key witnesses.

A lot of our clients, John did his

client of course, stuff like that.

And then Omeed did Officer Ramos.

He had taken that deposition as

well. And then Omeed did closing.

So this was their victory,

and we just got to sit here and talk

to you about a hard work they did. So.

They should be the ones on this podcast

next time, next time we'll get 'em on.

Yeah, do.

Another episode with just them.

I think it would be interesting to have

the three of them have three attorneys

who have been in their five, six

years or under and talking to, well,

what did you do to prepare?

Some of 'em have been Anita,

some of 'em did trial in school. What

did you do to prepare for this trial?

What support was good

and what support was bad,

or what support was missing that

Sidart could have given you?

Where could he have given you

more support and things like that?

That might take a whole podcast though.

Yes, any series.

And I think that would be

really interesting to hear

from him and hear how they

prepared for this trial.

And I think a lot of younger attorneys

could learn a lot from those three.

I learned a lot from them.

I'll tell you that flat out,

I learned a lot from those three.

So that's it. This is a done deal.

This is part one. Ladies and gentlemen.

We are going to come back with part two

where we're going to have these younger

lawyers on.

They're going to talk about what they

did to prepare for this monster case with

the monster verdict.

And it cannot wait for the second

part of this podcast. But Siddhartha,

John, congratulations

on just a phenomenal,

righteous,

fun result on a trial that

might effectuate some change.

We didn't get a chance

to touch on some change,

but hope springs eternal that

perhaps somebody is going to learn

something to prevent these types of

things from happening in the future.

Hopefully, clients one day

get to see their hard results,

the results of all the hard work

that went into this. So Siddhartha,

thank you so much for taking time

out of your day to join us. John,

good to see you again. We

absolutely not see you tomorrow,

but congratulations to you both

on an amazing, amazing result.

And tune in next time for

part two of this trial end

result where we get to talk to all

the worker bees that did all the heavy

lifting here and really gained some

wisdom from that group of people.

So thank you both again.

Thank you for audience. Thanks Keith.

Thank you for joining us.

We hope you've gained valuable insights

and inspiration from today's courtroom

warriors. And thank you

for being in the arena.

Make sure to subscribe and join us next

time as we continue to dissect real

cases and learn from

Colorado's top trial lawyers.

Our mission is to empower

our legal community,

helping us to become better trial lawyers

to effectively represent our clients.

Keep your connection to

Colorado's best trial lawyers

alive at www.thectlc.com.