Wiretapped conversation and consensual “sting” evidence require different regimens of discourse and acoustic analysis.
Wiretap case analysis has two domains – the investigation of the content of conversations and the analysis of social patterns of communications about and among other targets. Surreptitious recording by a party to a conversation explores covert agendas for recording and the behavioral patterns of both the unwitting target and the recording individual.
Legal Language works with deep experience in the techniques of incrimination employed by trained operatives and amateurs alike.
Our methods integrate the litigation counsel and staff into our highly disciplined review process so the trial team understands what we do and how we do it.
Legal Language uses the same methods to teach ourselves the evidence as we will use to teach that evidence to the jury. We often combine document review and audio review so that we may cross reference recorded statements and documented facts, allowing them to march together towards a common goal.
What’s more, we consolidate trial counsels’ perspective of the case facts with our own as we deconstruct the recorded evidence for anything that can bring success at trial.
Once we have achieved mastery of the recorded evidence, we can support counsel in managing the presentation of that favorable recorded evidence at trial. That mastery is the hard won product of disciplined and inquisitive thinkers who work together as an ensemble, thinking strategically about every sentence recorded. We define our success by the outcome of the case and the successful transfer of our expertise to our clients.
Legal Language has assisted the US government, major law firms, financial institutions and member companies of the Fortune 500.
Call 1-800-788-0450 now for a FREE, no-obligation consultation with one of our experienced account executives, and let us show you the difference that professionalism, quality and teamwork can make.