I work for a small engineering firm that's partly owned by a professor that's renowned as a literal "world's leading expert" in the field. Like full on 1/2 the publications in some subjects on the field have his name on them. He's got a huge research group. Because of his reputation, we do a fair bit of professional witness work. I get to go thorugh the depositions and background documents and usually give him a binder of all the relevant stuff to review. Really interesting stuff.
He's had couple of moments like this!
My favorite case, we had been working on it for 6 months and I easily billed 1000 hours alone. We reached the point where both sides had to disclose who their experts were. We had a meeting with the lawyer and they said, "the opposing side's witness is so-and-so, does that make you nervous?" So and so was a titan in the industry, but not an expert in the specifics issues of the case, my boss is. He just smirked and said, "yeah, that won't be a problem."
Our side got a settlement offer the next day. I'd like to imagine the other side of that conversation did not go as smoothly.
One time the opposite kind of happened to me. I wrote a book on a very specific topic and I was discussing a facet of this very specific topic with someone on the opposite side of a dispute involving the topic, and I said something about it, and he said, well that's not what you said in your book. And I looked and he was right. lol
I absolutely did not expect to see ur name above that comment when I usually only know u as a bonk cup mapper. Sure, you have a life outside of TM but still, kinda random
When I was in college, years ago, I was working nightshift (unarmed) security at a Holiday Inn. One night we got robbed at gunpoint by a group of young men, as part of a gang initiation. As they left the lobby, I followed them and saw them jump into a car, then the next car rolling by was a cop car. It took five words to the cops ("Get them, they robbed us!") and they were all picked up shortly. A couple of them bailed out of their car and ran across the interstate but were picked up on the other side.
Fast forward to their court date. I'm on the stand, describing the pattern of the bandanas they were wearing over their faces, same bandanas found on them when apprehended. The defense attorney asks "Were you scared?" Me "Um, yeah. They were pointing guns at me." "So you were shaken and maybe got the details wrong." "No Sir"
Lawyer thinks this is his Perry Mason moment "I don't understand how you could be scared but not shaken. Explain that!"
"Well, when I was being trained in law enforcement in the Air Force" At this point the whole jury, who had been kinda bored, audibly sits up straight. "I was taught to pay attention to details of a crime scene, and they were hiding their faces, so they expected to leave witnesses. So it was scary to be at gunpoint but I expected to live through it and started memorizing every detail I could."
Lawyer just stood there for a minute. "No further questions."
This is the “one too many [questions]” rule of cross examination. If the attorney had left it that you were scared, he might have argued in closing that it’s not a stretch to think that people often get confused in these situations.
Nah. The prosecutor would have just come back and finished off the line of questioning.
The "one too many questions" rule is largely irrelevant. The lawyer on the other side should (assuming sufficient prep) know how to handle their own witnesses. If a line of questioning is going to lead to an outcome like this, it doesn't matter if one lawyer cuts it short, since the other will just hop in and finish it.
It's much, much more important to know what lines of questioning will be productive and stick entirely to those so as to not open a can of worms you're not ready to swallow.
Sometimes, sometimes not. Generally you want to ask that last question because you think it’s a clincher. If the prosecutor knows how the witness will answer, they’ll definitely ask it to rehabilitate, but if you’ve really scored points bringing out something they’ve ignored or failed to introduce, they may not know how the witness will answer the question, either. Then they’re the ones asking a question that may blow up.
It’s still better imho to let the prosecutor ask the question and risk giving some credibility to the prosecutor than to ask it yourself and ruin your own credibility by looking like a total buffoon. Particularly because if you’re making that calculus, you shouldn’t be ending on this line of questions. Put it somewhere in the middle of your examination and the rehabilitation won’t have as much punch.
Sure, it’s better not to ask the question than it is to ask it, but it’s better still not to even start on a line of questioning that’s going to backfire if it’s pushed one or two more steps than you plan to take it.
Asking a witness if they might have gotten the details wrong is never going to work out unless you’re laying a trap or springing one. This should be trial lawyer 101.
Obviously I don’t know how Air Force training would impact your abilities, but for the majority of people, the presence of a gun would greatly decrease their recall accuracy. It’s not so much about being scared as (so it’s theorized) one focuses on weapons to ensure that they are not in harms way
I was referencing the moment in the Alex Jones trial when he found out that the plaintiffs had gained legal access to the entire contents of his cell phone lol
Wild the man has made SO MUCH money scamming, and he goes and hires an incompetent lawyer. What lawyer doesn’t react when they accidentally share tons of privileged information with opposing counsel? He didn’t even tell his client he fucked up. 😂
I think it is important to note here that the doctor's child wrote the statement and likely wasn't at the actual trial. Who knows if it happened exactly like that as the child wouldn't know either. Maybe they heard their father tell an exaggerated story and took it as the truth. There is normally depositions of the witnesses before the trial as well where that would have come out.
There is one caveat to this. Sometimes an answer to a yes/no question can help your case if they say yes and is neutral if they say no (or vice versa). If that’s the case, I’ll ask a question I don’t know the answer to.
Two caveats to this: always have a followup question for recovery. You're not playing to the judge, you're playing to a jury. Move on to your fallback question without hurry, without worry. Make the jury doubt what they heard was really all that important. Let the fuckup fade into the background.
I actually only do bench trials, so I’m just presenting evidence to the judge. It’s much more academic and dry. If the answer is neutral, the judge doesn’t care. At worst, they might think it was a dumb or pointless question, but they’ll move on from it immediately.
I completely agree with you that it would need to be handled in a particular way if there’s a jury.
As always in the law, even the caveats have exceptions. If you're pulling bench, the only rule is don't fuck up to begin with. Embody the machine of government. Become the letter of the law.
I'm glad to be in a jurisdiction where jury trials for civil actions aren't really a thing, save for a few specific and rare circumstances.
Most of my cases that make it to trial are ultimately disputes over a couple of points so asinine, I couldn't imagine any juror walking away from it thinking anything other than "what a waste of my time". I'm sure plenty of judges feel the same way, I know I certainly do at times. But hey, what can you do when you're up against insurance companies who'll run things on the off chance something fatal to our case crops up during cross?
(Apologies, the tangent below got really long winded, feel free to ignore it! I get wordy when I've been out for a few and think it's smart to start a 'short' comment).
I am also glad that the profession is split here in England and Wales. Advocacy is not something I think I'd ever feel entirely comfortable doing. No matter how prepared I might be, there's always the nagging feeling that I've totally missed something. Dipping my toes in with the occasional application hearing is enough for me!
I'll tag along to trial if it's local (or interesting enough to travel) and seeing the way the barristers approach them is always such a stark reminder that my brain is just not wired that way. Even then, there is a fair amount of variation between the way each of them go about it.
Something I've learned during my time is that instructing the right advocate for the case can quietly be massively important. Most of them could be dealt with by pretty much any just about competent barrister, and the area I practice in is often where pupils / the freshly qualified cut their teeth. However, when you find yourself needing someone experienced, their style can be just as important.
One guy I instruct regularly is absolutely meticulous and will go through every possibility with a fine tooth comb no matter how remote they really are. He is my go to when my 'this is starting to sound like bs' alarm starts ringing, or an interesting point of law crops up.
Sometimes though, you're aware you're on somewhat shaky ground but the client decides that despite the risks, it's worth taking a punt. In those circumstances, I tend to go for another guy. He's just as meticulous but is much more willing to push on if he thinks he can get a better result than any offers that come in on the court steps.
Thank you for sharing! It’s really interesting to hear how things work in other countries.
In the U.S., most civil cases are eligible for jury trials, so my cases are more of an exception. Honestly though, I don’t think I have the theatrics for juries so I prefer bench trials. Also you don’t have to worry as much about the judge making an emotional decision.
I never wanted to do litigation, but since the profession isn’t split in the U.S., I pretty much had to learn to do it. I would say I’m in the top 5-10% of lawyers in my specialty at trial work. If you compared my litigation skills to litigators as a whole though, I’d say I’m competent, but not spectacular. I’m lucky to mostly just face off against litigators who are terrible and thus make me look good by comparison!
I’ll ask questions I don’t know the answer to when a criminal defendant is up there telling a preposterous story. I’d do a short cross, with questions like “so you testified that …,” “you claim that …,” then ask them question that requires them to fill out their story to a point approaching absurdity.
That’s ridiculous. Sometimes you take calculated risks. And for prosecutors it’s a huge issue, because you have the burden. You don’t ask the question and you’ve left reasonable doubt. Sometimes you can work with either answer. There are many many variables for a trial attorney to consider and defense attorneys have changed their defense on a dime based on answers to questions they didn’t know the answer to. A lot of defense attorneys wouldn’t be able to do a basic cross examination if they used this rule. Police reports are bare bones, not all wits testify at preliminary hearings, and wits won’t give out of court statements. Trial might be your only opportunity.
I was at a coroners inquest nearly 10 years ago, that was involved with a major failing of a hospital to look after a car accident victim. The hospital basically left them for over 9 hours without a scan after they were complaining they found it hard to breathe. Turns out they had severe internal injuries and torn aortic valves and died the morning after.
The family were about to go to the inquest without legal representation but a week before a family friend who was "legally trained" said they'd like to do it for free and to get experience in different type of court to the one they normally do.....
Long story short, she was a top criminal barrister who basically dominated the hospitals legal team who had no idea they were going to get chewed out so badly.
She also quoted the main legal handbook many times which turned out the presiding coroner wrote...
I'm gonna be honest, after you putting "legally trained" into quotations and stating that the family friend doesn't have experience in the relevant field I expected a fuck up of epic proportions by the family friend.
The ending was a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
To be fair it was such a fuck up that it was only really going to go one way anyway. The coroner himself knew from his countless dealings with the hospital and the overwhelming evidence, that it was bad.
What he didn't quite realise was the family friend's tenacity and actually had to remind her that this wasn't a criminal court. A couple of the surgeons who hadn't done anything wrong, were grilled quite ferociously, but the coroner let her go full on with the hospital administration.
Having sat on a jury on a case with with a lot of expert witnesses, I love this story. You can bet that was a hot topic of conversation in that jury room!
In grad school I worked with two fairly famous professors. They frequently published together. One day, they were laughing about a stupid review they received for an article submission. They were told that they needed to read the seminal textbook by C,C,W,&A because they didn’t understand the basics. The article’s authors were W&A. They sent a joking response to the editor, saying that the reviewer was obviously a dumbass who didn’t understand the textbook in question.
I've heard some version of this from every academic I know. Seems to happen to women more. My favorite was when my department was hiring a senior faculty member. Woman came in and gave a talk and one of the folks from the other side of the department asked how it related to the work of " author with very masculine name". The professor giving the talk was that person.
Unfortunately, you’re right about women being treated poorly in academia. In the case I mentioned, though, it was a blind review. The reviewer didn’t know who the authors were.
Every time I see this one, I laugh, and also think of the one a few years ago, where some douchebro on Twitter tried to tell Astrophycist Dr. Katie Mack, that she should "learn some science"😉😂🤣
I went to a Peter Benchley book signing when he released White Shark. I was standing in line to get my copy signed. The person in front of me was talking Benchley's ear off, but he was being very friendly. I don't remember what exactly the man was talking about, but the conversation ended with:
Benchley: ...Yeah, that's what I thought.
Man: Oh, you read it?
Benchley: I wrote it.
Benchley gave me a smile. When I was at his table, I said, "I'm sure you get a lot of those." He said, "oh, yes. A lot."
I love this one but I've always been slightly skeptical of it as well. Attorneys aren't allowed to testify, which is basically what stating what the passage means is doing. The attorney would have to elicit the desired meaning by asking questions. At least, that's how it'd work in the US. If this happened somewhere else, that may well be different.
On direct (questioning your own witness) you usually can’t ask leading questions.
On cross examination (questioning the other side’s witnesses) you can generally ask leading questions.
Presumably, if the lawyer was poking holes in an expert witnesses testimony it would be the other sides witness, wherein this leading type of question would be allowed.
On cross examination (questioning the other side’s witnesses) you can generally ask leading questions.
That's not saying what the text means, though. It's possible, of course, that the anecdote is inaccurate in precisely what was said but I'm taking the facts as presented here, not as hypothetically done properly.
Attorneys can ask whatever they want, however they want to. It's mainly up to the other side to object and force them to ask questions the right way. They can absolutely paraphrase the passage and ask if their summary was correct, as long as the other side doesn't object to the form of the question.
I once had someone insist on they knew the meaning of a security requirement, that I wrote, they knew I wrote it and still said their interoperation was the correct one.
The idea that a lawyer in a medical malpractice case [known as a very difficult realm to practice in requiring extrememly competent counsel just even to get to trial] would not know the source of his treatise on examination was the same guy as on the stand is incomprehensible so far as to requiring absolute disbelief.
Further, the laws are so slanted in favor of doctors and hospitals [really their insurance companies] that there are really no "frivolous" claims that ever make it there. This reeks like an old, regurgitated lawyer joke for karma farming.
When you're relying on an expert witness you have to send over their CV, which would list published works. It's possible that he's such a prolific writer that they missed this book within the list. But I agree, I was surprised to see this post here and not in r/thathappened.
The closest I've seen is the case where a female expert authored a report and provided a CV several months before trial. An associate for the plaintiff did her depo instead of trial counsel, so trial counsel didn't know what she looked like. She got married and changed her name about a month before trial. Defense called her by her married name, and plaintiff's counsel asked for a side bar then said she was a surprise expert witness. My judge made defense enter the expert's marriage certificate/license/whatever as an exhibit to prove it was the same person, and he got mad at the expert for changing her name so close to trial. My judge is not very reasonable when it comes to women, especially if he perceives them as smarter than him (said expert was hella smart, I won't say what I think about the judge I work for...)
I agree this is a very unlikely situation, but also that just practicing med mal doesn't mean you're so good it isn't possible. Occasionally very competent people get cocky or have unusual distractions in their lives and make shocking mistakes otherwise out of character for them. It might be a once in a lifetime mistake, but they happen.
Not quite the same, but a friend of mine got sued over taking someone's personal effects that he couldn't have done (nowhere near their home and was at work at the time). The cops had refused to arrest him after talking to him briefly, so the civil suit.
The plaintiff hired a real estate attorney who wanted to branch out into other areas of the law.
Another friend of mine hooked him up with a real tiger of a lawyer who charged the bare minimum to deal with the situation. Apparently said tiger had a good time shredding the other attorney in court (yes, they pushed for it to go to court, it was stupid on all levels).
So it's possible this situation was a lawyer not familiar with malpractice and thought they could branch out.
This happens quite a bit with insurance companies too. We'll have our docs calling in to argue that a patient needs X drug or treatment, and the phone drones will say that they don't allow that, based on evidence by Dr. John Doe that treatment Z is better. They're talking to Dr. John Doe.
Experts on both sides use texts to formulate their opinion. They disclose these in their expert report. They will get questioned on them and could be questioned on other texts widely considered the standard in their practice area. This is very common. It’s also not going to be the only thing the expert talks about, just a part or a deposition or trial.
Reminds me of the time my coworker was approached by a recruiter to apply for an equivalent position where the salary was 65% higher. Later in the application process it was discovered that the company was our employer…
He went to our boss and asked to apply for that position. He was told the salary figure was just to attract talent but they never planned to actually pay that much. Two weeks later they fired him for “poor performance” aka asking too many questions. Never was happier leaving a company. Well at least until I found out that they had used a keylogger on my computer and logged into my google account and started going through my google drive with all my personal photos. Moral of the story is that the slot machine industry is full of slimy lying stealing bastards.
What an opposite effect. Not only does this all-but prove to the jury that the defense attorney is grasping at straws because they know the guys did it, but it also showed their peers that they don't do their due diligence in court preparation.
I’m a working court reporter and I can confidently say that a LOT of the time attorneys deposing expert witnesses are very confident in a subject they don’t understand and the witness just looks at them with that long stare.
My favorite version of this, I only have second hand. I worked at Michigan State for a while, where there was a research center dedicated to turf grass. One of the researchers, who had been on the team that saved the Brazil world cup year. All the flooding, told me a story about getting in a fight with his HOA about his yard. I don't remember the exact point of contention, but they were arguing about the science of yard care, and the guy was like " I'm literally the smartest person on the planet when it comes to this stuff" and pulled up his resume on his phone
I work for a small engineering firm that's partly owned by a professor that's renowned as a literal "world's leading expert" in the field. Like full on 1/2 the publications in some subjects on the field have his name on them. He's got a huge research group. Because of his reputation, we do a fair bit of professional witness work. I get to go thorugh the depositions and background documents and usually give him a binder of all the relevant stuff to review. Really interesting stuff.
He's had couple of moments like this!
My favorite case, we had been working on it for 6 months and I easily billed 1000 hours alone. We reached the point where both sides had to disclose who their experts were. We had a meeting with the lawyer and they said, "the opposing side's witness is so-and-so, does that make you nervous?" So and so was a titan in the industry, but not an expert in the specifics issues of the case, my boss is. He just smirked and said, "yeah, that won't be a problem."
Our side got a settlement offer the next day. I'd like to imagine the other side of that conversation did not go as smoothly.
Leslie Claret?
There's no way that show was popular enough to get these references.
“a task apparatus that consists of 10 vertically composited patch hamplers“
As soon as I saw OP’s comment I thought about Structural Dynamics of Flow lol
Ah, a fellow McMillan man I see
One time the opposite kind of happened to me. I wrote a book on a very specific topic and I was discussing a facet of this very specific topic with someone on the opposite side of a dispute involving the topic, and I said something about it, and he said, well that's not what you said in your book. And I looked and he was right. lol
/r/idontknowwhoiam
dammit, that sub is banned :(
Try r/dontyouknowwhoyouare
that one works :D
Good on you for admitting it here in front of us nerds.
Oof. No coming back from that.
Mans out here live-inventing second editions.
Well damn, you can't just leave us hanging. What was the book and what you said in it?
I absolutely did not expect to see ur name above that comment when I usually only know u as a bonk cup mapper. Sure, you have a life outside of TM but still, kinda random
gg
Having been personally a part of seeing a lawyer's "gotcha" moment backfire, I love this completely!
Story time?
When I was in college, years ago, I was working nightshift (unarmed) security at a Holiday Inn. One night we got robbed at gunpoint by a group of young men, as part of a gang initiation. As they left the lobby, I followed them and saw them jump into a car, then the next car rolling by was a cop car. It took five words to the cops ("Get them, they robbed us!") and they were all picked up shortly. A couple of them bailed out of their car and ran across the interstate but were picked up on the other side.
Fast forward to their court date. I'm on the stand, describing the pattern of the bandanas they were wearing over their faces, same bandanas found on them when apprehended. The defense attorney asks "Were you scared?" Me "Um, yeah. They were pointing guns at me." "So you were shaken and maybe got the details wrong." "No Sir"
Lawyer thinks this is his Perry Mason moment "I don't understand how you could be scared but not shaken. Explain that!"
"Well, when I was being trained in law enforcement in the Air Force" At this point the whole jury, who had been kinda bored, audibly sits up straight. "I was taught to pay attention to details of a crime scene, and they were hiding their faces, so they expected to leave witnesses. So it was scary to be at gunpoint but I expected to live through it and started memorizing every detail I could."
Lawyer just stood there for a minute. "No further questions."
Every one of them found Guilty on all counts.
This is the “one too many [questions]” rule of cross examination. If the attorney had left it that you were scared, he might have argued in closing that it’s not a stretch to think that people often get confused in these situations.
that and the famous "dont ask questions you dont know the answer to" rule
I’m not a lawyer but one of my policies has always been to never ask I question I might not like any potential answer to.
Might have something to do with both my parents being lawyers really.
Household arguments must have been a trip. A long, drawn out, excessively researched trip.
This is my philosophy with dating. I never bring up something or ask questions about something. I’m not willing to answer myself. Lol!
Nah. The prosecutor would have just come back and finished off the line of questioning.
The "one too many questions" rule is largely irrelevant. The lawyer on the other side should (assuming sufficient prep) know how to handle their own witnesses. If a line of questioning is going to lead to an outcome like this, it doesn't matter if one lawyer cuts it short, since the other will just hop in and finish it.
It's much, much more important to know what lines of questioning will be productive and stick entirely to those so as to not open a can of worms you're not ready to swallow.
Sure, they’re supposed to but no sense doing their job for them
Yeah but the better move is just not to tee them up in the first place.
Sometimes, sometimes not. Generally you want to ask that last question because you think it’s a clincher. If the prosecutor knows how the witness will answer, they’ll definitely ask it to rehabilitate, but if you’ve really scored points bringing out something they’ve ignored or failed to introduce, they may not know how the witness will answer the question, either. Then they’re the ones asking a question that may blow up.
It’s still better imho to let the prosecutor ask the question and risk giving some credibility to the prosecutor than to ask it yourself and ruin your own credibility by looking like a total buffoon. Particularly because if you’re making that calculus, you shouldn’t be ending on this line of questions. Put it somewhere in the middle of your examination and the rehabilitation won’t have as much punch.
Sure, it’s better not to ask the question than it is to ask it, but it’s better still not to even start on a line of questioning that’s going to backfire if it’s pushed one or two more steps than you plan to take it.
Asking a witness if they might have gotten the details wrong is never going to work out unless you’re laying a trap or springing one. This should be trial lawyer 101.
Obviously I don’t know how Air Force training would impact your abilities, but for the majority of people, the presence of a gun would greatly decrease their recall accuracy. It’s not so much about being scared as (so it’s theorized) one focuses on weapons to ensure that they are not in harms way
Video time? 🍿
"This is your Perry Mason moment."
I just described it that way, too!
I was referencing the moment in the Alex Jones trial when he found out that the plaintiffs had gained legal access to the entire contents of his cell phone lol
Link? Or what I should search on yt??
https://youtu.be/tpnSCIak5A8?si=9AHE3xOMoTyg3Rer
The "Perry Mason moment" and immediate context starts at about 5:00, but the whole thing is worth a watch just to see Jones squirm.
"so you did get my text messages. You said you didn't. Nice trick" bahahaahahha OMG and it just gets better. Bless you.
It's great, I watched the whole case as it happened and that day was absolutely wild
That's a man who is farting for his life right there.
I declare info war on YOU!
Wild the man has made SO MUCH money scamming, and he goes and hires an incompetent lawyer. What lawyer doesn’t react when they accidentally share tons of privileged information with opposing counsel? He didn’t even tell his client he fucked up. 😂
I love reddit story time
They really missed the cardinal rule "never ask a question you don't know the answer to"
Never ask a question in court unless you already know the answer.
Seems like in this case, the lawyer mistakenly believed he knew the answer
I think it is important to note here that the doctor's child wrote the statement and likely wasn't at the actual trial. Who knows if it happened exactly like that as the child wouldn't know either. Maybe they heard their father tell an exaggerated story and took it as the truth. There is normally depositions of the witnesses before the trial as well where that would have come out.
Not quite r/untrustworthypoptarts territory, but just a dad being a dad.
More specifically he knew the lie he wanted the jury to believe.
That's not more specific, that's a different statement, which disagrees with the one I made.
Oof lawyered
There is one caveat to this. Sometimes an answer to a yes/no question can help your case if they say yes and is neutral if they say no (or vice versa). If that’s the case, I’ll ask a question I don’t know the answer to.
Two caveats to this: always have a followup question for recovery. You're not playing to the judge, you're playing to a jury. Move on to your fallback question without hurry, without worry. Make the jury doubt what they heard was really all that important. Let the fuckup fade into the background.
I actually only do bench trials, so I’m just presenting evidence to the judge. It’s much more academic and dry. If the answer is neutral, the judge doesn’t care. At worst, they might think it was a dumb or pointless question, but they’ll move on from it immediately.
I completely agree with you that it would need to be handled in a particular way if there’s a jury.
As always in the law, even the caveats have exceptions. If you're pulling bench, the only rule is don't fuck up to begin with. Embody the machine of government. Become the letter of the law.
I'm glad to be in a jurisdiction where jury trials for civil actions aren't really a thing, save for a few specific and rare circumstances.
Most of my cases that make it to trial are ultimately disputes over a couple of points so asinine, I couldn't imagine any juror walking away from it thinking anything other than "what a waste of my time". I'm sure plenty of judges feel the same way, I know I certainly do at times. But hey, what can you do when you're up against insurance companies who'll run things on the off chance something fatal to our case crops up during cross?
(Apologies, the tangent below got really long winded, feel free to ignore it! I get wordy when I've been out for a few and think it's smart to start a 'short' comment).
I am also glad that the profession is split here in England and Wales. Advocacy is not something I think I'd ever feel entirely comfortable doing. No matter how prepared I might be, there's always the nagging feeling that I've totally missed something. Dipping my toes in with the occasional application hearing is enough for me!
I'll tag along to trial if it's local (or interesting enough to travel) and seeing the way the barristers approach them is always such a stark reminder that my brain is just not wired that way. Even then, there is a fair amount of variation between the way each of them go about it.
Something I've learned during my time is that instructing the right advocate for the case can quietly be massively important. Most of them could be dealt with by pretty much any just about competent barrister, and the area I practice in is often where pupils / the freshly qualified cut their teeth. However, when you find yourself needing someone experienced, their style can be just as important.
One guy I instruct regularly is absolutely meticulous and will go through every possibility with a fine tooth comb no matter how remote they really are. He is my go to when my 'this is starting to sound like bs' alarm starts ringing, or an interesting point of law crops up.
Sometimes though, you're aware you're on somewhat shaky ground but the client decides that despite the risks, it's worth taking a punt. In those circumstances, I tend to go for another guy. He's just as meticulous but is much more willing to push on if he thinks he can get a better result than any offers that come in on the court steps.
Thank you for sharing! It’s really interesting to hear how things work in other countries.
In the U.S., most civil cases are eligible for jury trials, so my cases are more of an exception. Honestly though, I don’t think I have the theatrics for juries so I prefer bench trials. Also you don’t have to worry as much about the judge making an emotional decision.
I never wanted to do litigation, but since the profession isn’t split in the U.S., I pretty much had to learn to do it. I would say I’m in the top 5-10% of lawyers in my specialty at trial work. If you compared my litigation skills to litigators as a whole though, I’d say I’m competent, but not spectacular. I’m lucky to mostly just face off against litigators who are terrible and thus make me look good by comparison!
I’ll ask questions I don’t know the answer to when a criminal defendant is up there telling a preposterous story. I’d do a short cross, with questions like “so you testified that …,” “you claim that …,” then ask them question that requires them to fill out their story to a point approaching absurdity.
That’s ridiculous. Sometimes you take calculated risks. And for prosecutors it’s a huge issue, because you have the burden. You don’t ask the question and you’ve left reasonable doubt. Sometimes you can work with either answer. There are many many variables for a trial attorney to consider and defense attorneys have changed their defense on a dime based on answers to questions they didn’t know the answer to. A lot of defense attorneys wouldn’t be able to do a basic cross examination if they used this rule. Police reports are bare bones, not all wits testify at preliminary hearings, and wits won’t give out of court statements. Trial might be your only opportunity.
I was at a coroners inquest nearly 10 years ago, that was involved with a major failing of a hospital to look after a car accident victim. The hospital basically left them for over 9 hours without a scan after they were complaining they found it hard to breathe. Turns out they had severe internal injuries and torn aortic valves and died the morning after.
The family were about to go to the inquest without legal representation but a week before a family friend who was "legally trained" said they'd like to do it for free and to get experience in different type of court to the one they normally do.....
Long story short, she was a top criminal barrister who basically dominated the hospitals legal team who had no idea they were going to get chewed out so badly. She also quoted the main legal handbook many times which turned out the presiding coroner wrote...
Coroner ruler death by gross neglect.
I'm gonna be honest, after you putting "legally trained" into quotations and stating that the family friend doesn't have experience in the relevant field I expected a fuck up of epic proportions by the family friend.
The ending was a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
To be fair it was such a fuck up that it was only really going to go one way anyway. The coroner himself knew from his countless dealings with the hospital and the overwhelming evidence, that it was bad. What he didn't quite realise was the family friend's tenacity and actually had to remind her that this wasn't a criminal court. A couple of the surgeons who hadn't done anything wrong, were grilled quite ferociously, but the coroner let her go full on with the hospital administration.
R/prequelmemes
Having sat on a jury on a case with with a lot of expert witnesses, I love this story. You can bet that was a hot topic of conversation in that jury room!
In grad school I worked with two fairly famous professors. They frequently published together. One day, they were laughing about a stupid review they received for an article submission. They were told that they needed to read the seminal textbook by C,C,W,&A because they didn’t understand the basics. The article’s authors were W&A. They sent a joking response to the editor, saying that the reviewer was obviously a dumbass who didn’t understand the textbook in question.
I've heard some version of this from every academic I know. Seems to happen to women more. My favorite was when my department was hiring a senior faculty member. Woman came in and gave a talk and one of the folks from the other side of the department asked how it related to the work of " author with very masculine name". The professor giving the talk was that person.
Unfortunately, you’re right about women being treated poorly in academia. In the case I mentioned, though, it was a blind review. The reviewer didn’t know who the authors were.
Do reviewers get the articles with author names, or anonymous, to avoid bias?
Normally reviews are ‘blind’. As you suggested, author names are removed to avoid bias.
Every time I see this one, I laugh, and also think of the one a few years ago, where some douchebro on Twitter tried to tell Astrophycist Dr. Katie Mack, that she should "learn some science"😉😂🤣
https://diply.com/astrophysicist-claps-back-at-guy-trying-to-mansplain-climate-ch/
Oh my gods I remember that, absolutely wild bit of confidence there
I went to a Peter Benchley book signing when he released White Shark. I was standing in line to get my copy signed. The person in front of me was talking Benchley's ear off, but he was being very friendly. I don't remember what exactly the man was talking about, but the conversation ended with:
Benchley: ...Yeah, that's what I thought.
Man: Oh, you read it?
Benchley: I wrote it.
Benchley gave me a smile. When I was at his table, I said, "I'm sure you get a lot of those." He said, "oh, yes. A lot."
I can just imagine the film adaptaion:
Doctor: Look at the back cover
Lawyer: Why would I do that?
Doctor: Just look at it
Lawyer: I don’t know what kind of game you’re trying to play…
Judge: Oh, just look at the cover, Mr Lawyer
{He turns it over to reveal the author photograph}
Doctor: I know what the author meant, because I AM the author!
{The court erupts into applause}
Judge: Case dismissed!
I love this one but I've always been slightly skeptical of it as well. Attorneys aren't allowed to testify, which is basically what stating what the passage means is doing. The attorney would have to elicit the desired meaning by asking questions. At least, that's how it'd work in the US. If this happened somewhere else, that may well be different.
On direct (questioning your own witness) you usually can’t ask leading questions.
On cross examination (questioning the other side’s witnesses) you can generally ask leading questions.
Presumably, if the lawyer was poking holes in an expert witnesses testimony it would be the other sides witness, wherein this leading type of question would be allowed.
That's not saying what the text means, though. It's possible, of course, that the anecdote is inaccurate in precisely what was said but I'm taking the facts as presented here, not as hypothetically done properly.
Attorneys can ask whatever they want, however they want to. It's mainly up to the other side to object and force them to ask questions the right way. They can absolutely paraphrase the passage and ask if their summary was correct, as long as the other side doesn't object to the form of the question.
I once had someone insist on they knew the meaning of a security requirement, that I wrote, they knew I wrote it and still said their interoperation was the correct one.
The idea that a lawyer in a medical malpractice case [known as a very difficult realm to practice in requiring extrememly competent counsel just even to get to trial] would not know the source of his treatise on examination was the same guy as on the stand is incomprehensible so far as to requiring absolute disbelief.
Further, the laws are so slanted in favor of doctors and hospitals [really their insurance companies] that there are really no "frivolous" claims that ever make it there. This reeks like an old, regurgitated lawyer joke for karma farming.
Those type of textbooks rarely have a single author. It could be easy to miss the author of one specific paragraph/page if a lot is being cited.
The doctor also could have a very common and thus forgettable name.
When you're relying on an expert witness you have to send over their CV, which would list published works. It's possible that he's such a prolific writer that they missed this book within the list. But I agree, I was surprised to see this post here and not in r/thathappened.
The closest I've seen is the case where a female expert authored a report and provided a CV several months before trial. An associate for the plaintiff did her depo instead of trial counsel, so trial counsel didn't know what she looked like. She got married and changed her name about a month before trial. Defense called her by her married name, and plaintiff's counsel asked for a side bar then said she was a surprise expert witness. My judge made defense enter the expert's marriage certificate/license/whatever as an exhibit to prove it was the same person, and he got mad at the expert for changing her name so close to trial. My judge is not very reasonable when it comes to women, especially if he perceives them as smarter than him (said expert was hella smart, I won't say what I think about the judge I work for...)
I agree this is a very unlikely situation, but also that just practicing med mal doesn't mean you're so good it isn't possible. Occasionally very competent people get cocky or have unusual distractions in their lives and make shocking mistakes otherwise out of character for them. It might be a once in a lifetime mistake, but they happen.
Not quite the same, but a friend of mine got sued over taking someone's personal effects that he couldn't have done (nowhere near their home and was at work at the time). The cops had refused to arrest him after talking to him briefly, so the civil suit.
The plaintiff hired a real estate attorney who wanted to branch out into other areas of the law.
Another friend of mine hooked him up with a real tiger of a lawyer who charged the bare minimum to deal with the situation. Apparently said tiger had a good time shredding the other attorney in court (yes, they pushed for it to go to court, it was stupid on all levels).
So it's possible this situation was a lawyer not familiar with malpractice and thought they could branch out.
This happens quite a bit with insurance companies too. We'll have our docs calling in to argue that a patient needs X drug or treatment, and the phone drones will say that they don't allow that, based on evidence by Dr. John Doe that treatment Z is better. They're talking to Dr. John Doe.
AI has come for the r/worstoflegaladvice.
I’m also a bit skeptical that they called an expert witness so that they could tell the expert what a medical textbook says
Maybe this is actually how it works and I’m just unfamiliar with it, but that just sounds very off
Experts on both sides use texts to formulate their opinion. They disclose these in their expert report. They will get questioned on them and could be questioned on other texts widely considered the standard in their practice area. This is very common. It’s also not going to be the only thing the expert talks about, just a part or a deposition or trial.
Was during cross examination
Why is this type of feeling so universal?! Is it from reading it in books? Idk but so satisfying
Reminds me of the time my coworker was approached by a recruiter to apply for an equivalent position where the salary was 65% higher. Later in the application process it was discovered that the company was our employer…
He went to our boss and asked to apply for that position. He was told the salary figure was just to attract talent but they never planned to actually pay that much. Two weeks later they fired him for “poor performance” aka asking too many questions. Never was happier leaving a company. Well at least until I found out that they had used a keylogger on my computer and logged into my google account and started going through my google drive with all my personal photos. Moral of the story is that the slot machine industry is full of slimy lying stealing bastards.
What an opposite effect. Not only does this all-but prove to the jury that the defense attorney is grasping at straws because they know the guys did it, but it also showed their peers that they don't do their due diligence in court preparation.
I’m a working court reporter and I can confidently say that a LOT of the time attorneys deposing expert witnesses are very confident in a subject they don’t understand and the witness just looks at them with that long stare.
My favorite version of this, I only have second hand. I worked at Michigan State for a while, where there was a research center dedicated to turf grass. One of the researchers, who had been on the team that saved the Brazil world cup year. All the flooding, told me a story about getting in a fight with his HOA about his yard. I don't remember the exact point of contention, but they were arguing about the science of yard care, and the guy was like " I'm literally the smartest person on the planet when it comes to this stuff" and pulled up his resume on his phone
I was told by an eminent barrister that in court you never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.
Or this is what happens.
what specialty was this?
That’s awesome!
I cast doubt specifically on the "frivolous" claim. Not getting your case dismissed typically means you have one of the following:
1) a lot of money for a good lawyer
2) an exceedingly biased judge
3) an actual case that isn't purely frivolous
The system isn't as easy to not have your case dismissed as you might think.
Never ask questions you don’t know the answer to.