• Home
  • About Jim
  • Blog
  • Books
  • Reviews
  • Order
  • Contact
  • Excerpts
JIM WARREN

Courtroom Antics

1/29/2021

0 Comments

 

I was testifying in the Supreme Court as an expert witness on behalf of an insurance company in an accident claim. The previous day my esteemed colleague had testified for the plaintive.  This was a jury trial.  The plaintiffs lawyer was challenging my written report that had been earlier submitted to the court. My opinion differed from my colleague's opinion that had been rendered the previous day.
        I was sitting in the witness box, still under cross-examination, when the judge made an observation to the jury.  He said, as nearly as I can remember,  "You the jury, have heard two distinguished physicians arrive at different conclusions based on consideration of the same set of facts. This reminds me, "he said, " of old judge So and So, QC who defined an expert witness as a sonofabitch with a briefcase."  I was speechless. So were the lawyers. There was a long pause as the jury members looked at one another and inwardly digested the lord's remark. After the fact, I thought of many clever things I might have said, but the judge is Master of the Court and contempt towards it is not easily undone.
        To anaiyze, we often place a jury in a difficult situation when evidence of both witnesses may be equally persuasive. Medicine in many instances is  not an exact science. As you may expect this observation swung the scale and the plaintiff received a large settlement. The defense had the basis for appeal on possible grounds of judicial bias but did not do so.
        In retrospect the judge may have been expressing a frustration many judges and juries do have and that is having to choose between testimony they believe is conditioned by   "who pays the piper calls the tune". In fact, having reviewed many such scenario's the truth that is much more usual is  "the payer {lawyer} shops for those pipers{doctors} whose tune he knows he can dance to." Judges should know this of course since lawyers judge shop as well as witnesses. It's a question of shopping, not collusion and is not really mystifying.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    For Jim's past posts, check out his old blog here:
    Elderly Eclectic Gentleman Blog

    Archives

    September 2022
    August 2022
    May 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly