Free Storytelling for Lawyers by Philip Meyer Page A

monolith, hungry only for money, who devalue the lives of the workers, leaving a wake of destruction by plutonium and the cancers that will follow. And there are also the defendant’s experts, also paid employees, testifying to draw the jurors into the mud springs. On the other side are the plaintiff’s witnesses: innocents, victims, members of a community without a voice or purpose. And these witnesses are complemented by the chorus of plaintiff’s experts, wise old men and helpers, who explain what the outcome will be for the community.
    In revisiting the testimony, the order of the voices within the closing argument is not in the sequence of the chronology of presentation at trial. Rather, the voices are cast in counterpoint to one another. Further, in terms of evidentiary rules and legal relevance, it is interesting that many of these witnesses were even allowed to testify since the issues at trial were extremely limited and narrowed by the plaintiff’s own legal theory (product liability and strict liability) and the judge’s own charge: Kerr-McGee had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (as an affirmative defense) that Karen Silkwood intentionally removed the plutonium from the Kerr-McGee plantthat caused her contamination. Therefore, the legal issues pertained to the events that occurred during the nine days Silkwood was contaminated and, most simply put, how she was contaminated. Nevertheless, over the objection of counsel, the judge admitted evidence pertaining to operations at the Kerr-McGee plant over a six-year period, although Silkwood only worked at the plant for two years, and about events occurring in areas of the plant where Silkwood never worked and did not have access to. 39 It is almost as if expansive principles of narrative logic and Spence’s narrative theme trumped the plaintiff’s own theory of the case and somehow compelled the trial court judge to afford Spence wide latitude in introducing evidence to shape and frame his story on a grander stage than the rules of evidence would seemingly allow.
    Here, for example, is how Spence revisits the testimony and juxtaposes contrasting depictions of the testimony of several witnesses. First, Mr. Utnage (outlaw villain), then “Young Apperson” (community member):
    Mr. Utnage
    I want to talk about the design of that plant very quickly. It was designed by Mr. Utnage. He never designed any kind of a plant.… And I confronted him with scores of problems—you remember those 574 reports of contaminations—they were that thick
[indicating]
, in two volumes.… I asked him about a leak detection system. “We do not need a leak detection system,” he said. “What do we need a leak detection system for? We can see it. We can see it.” Here is the man who told you that as long as you can’t see it, you’re safe. And we know that the amount of plutonium, a half a gram of plutonium, will contaminate the whole state of Oklahoma, and you can’t see it. They let it flop down into the rooms, and Jim Smith said one time it was in the room a foot thick on the floor. Do you remember the testimony? He said he designed a safe plant. And he believed the company lie that plutonium does not cause cancer. He sat there on that stand under his oath and looked at every one of you under his oath, and he said that plutonium has never been known to cause cancer. Well, now, either he lied, or he bought the company lie and didn’t know. But he was the man who designed the plant. You wouldn’t have to design a very good plant if you didn’t think plutonium caused cancer, it wouldn’t bother you. You wouldn’t work very hard. There wouldn’t be much to worry about. Like mayonnaise. 40
    â€œYoung Apperson”
    [D]o you remember young Apperson sitting there
[indicating]?
You remember his open face—I liked him a lot—an open, honest boy—blond, curly hair—you