It has been reported that Clarence Darrow in his days of defending the Pullman Company encountered a plaintiff who was severely injured in a case with not much of a defense of liability. Darrow, who had already garnered a sterling reputation as a cross-examiner who could be as mean as a yard dog, stood up to begin his cross-examination. The Courtroom stilled and Darrow addressed the witness in a voice that did not suggest a mean dog but rather a person seeking to understand the plaintiff:    

“Mr. Jones, isn’t it true that you have suffered grievous injuries and pain as a result of the accident you have described?”

Mr. Jones “Yes sir, Mr. Darrow, and to be honest, I still do.”

Darrow: “Well Mr. Jones, I have no intention of inflicting any more pain upon you here.”

Darrow: “Your honor, may this witness be excused?”

This is a true, paraphrased event from the career of the famous Clarence Darrow, Esq. long before he represented John Scopes in the “Scopes Monkey Trial'' in Dayton, Tennessee in 1926. Darrow obtained two results: there was zero redirect which meant no opportunity to repeat even in part the sad events that had occurred to Mr. Jones and the jury perceiving the old yard dog as a really nice fellow with empathy did not return an outlandishly high verdict in a case that was objectively evaluated going in at the highest exposure level. The report below illustrates what can happen if humanity is left out of the courtroom in a case that is going to create empathy in the jury for the plaintiff. 

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2021/11/04/306881.htm