The case demanded that Collyard stretch his legal muscles to do things he had never done before. He decided early on to make liberal use of visual aids rather than droning the jury to sleep with legal jargon. He spent a year improving his handwriting in anticipation of writing key points out legibly for the jury, but as it turned out, Doodle and Powerpoint software were more visually impactful mediums.

“The way people retain things is that they have to see it and hear it at the same time. I tried to use pictures and video clips of depositions early on in my opening statement, so the jury could retain the information and know instantly what the case was about. I tried to make it kind of like watching TV for them, and I found this really fun. For example, I’d play a video clip of a witness I believed wasn’t telling the truth, and it was fun to watch the jury scrutinize the credibility of the person on the screen. To me, the videotaped depositions of witnesses who didn’t appear live at trial gave me a leg up on the story. If I could tell it the right way, they would follow it and be in it. There were billions of dollars in and out of the account. I showed checks written by insiders to themselves for millions of dollars with memo lines like ‘Merry Christmas.’ People don’t want to be scammed, and I wanted to show them how this case related to their life. We all want our money to be safe. It all mixed with the themes of the case.”

The case also challenged Collyard’s trial skills in that he had to prove much of his argument through cross examination. “My client, Doug Kelley, is a trustee, so this is not a case where you call your own employees. All the facts had to come out through calling bank employees who were adverse parties and cross examining them. It made it incredibly difficult. A lot of thought went into depositions and how to get the right admissions to tell a story for the jury instead of just cross examining. It meant creating a road map, telling the jury through questions why something was important, and reminding the court and jury that the witness was adverse.”