March 27th, 2007

Practice Tip: One Way to Cross-Examine The Attractive Doctor

A recent British study confirmed something most of us all know intuitively:

Juries trying criminal cases are likely to be more lenient when the person in the dock is physically attractive, psychologists say.

So how do you level the playing field if, for example, you have an attractive doctor as a defendant in a medical malpractice case? And by attractive, I mean not just physically, but someone with good credentials who makes an impressive personal appearance by their ability to speak well. This is important if the patient chose the doctor.

The answer is not to knock them down, but to build them up in opening statements and jury selection (if your jurisdiction allows).

Tell the jury they will like the defendant. After all, your client chose this doctor for surgery, right? Trusted him/her. Kinda like Marcus Welby. Therefore, it stands to reason, the jury will too.

This does a few things: First, you have been dead honest. It is unlikely the jury expected you to “confess” this thing, but frankly, they will likely see it anyway if defense counsel is even mildly competent. Trying to tar a physician at the outset that your client previously trusted has enormous potential to backfire.

The jury also now has very high expectations for the doctor. With the bar set so high, any slip-up or contradictory testimony is likely to be viewed in a harsher light. Assuming you have a solid case to take to trial, this doctor-defendant will also lay out the standards of care (while they still trust him/her) before being confronted with the deviations from care, the sloppy notes, the rushed surgery, failure to read the x-ray, or contradictions from deposition testimony.

And there is something else at play here. The doctor was trusted, and the trust was betrayed. Betrayal often unleashes a flood of powerful emotions.

The instinct for confrontation must, at times, be avoided, and saved for those few special moments when the witness, who has now been built up, strays from the straight and narrow. And if that happens, it will have far greater impact than if you had simply tried to trash the doctor from the outset.

(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)

January 31st, 2007

Jurors Can’t Be Excluded by Nationality, Judge Says

A federal Magistrate Judge sitting in New York has ruled that potential jurors cannot be excluded from a jury based on nationality. The rule against discrimination stems from Batson v. Kentucky, where race had been used by attorneys for peremptory challenges. The Batson rule also been extended to other minorities and to gender based discrimination, and extends also into civil cases.

From today’s New York Times (sub. req.):

The judge, in a ruling last week, opened a door to lawyers defending a West Indian man who argued that he had been denied justice because all five potential jurors who were West Indian were improperly excluded by the prosecution. The Bronx jury that convicted the man, Mark Watson, of rape, sodomy and burglary included blacks, but all of them were American born.

…

The judge, James C. Francis IV, ordered a hearing to determine “whether the state can offer a nondiscriminatory explanation for its peremptory challenges and whether Mr. Watson can carry his burden of establishing discriminatory intent.” If a separate hearing determines that jury selection was discriminatory, Mr. Watson, who was born in Jamaica and is serving 37 1/2 to 75 years in prison, could receive a new trial.
…

“Mr. Watson established that the prosecutor had struck every one of the five West Indian prospective jurors, a showing that was plainly sufficient to support an inference of intentional discrimination,” Judge Francis wrote.

“If striking five out of five West Indian jurors is insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination, it is difficult to imagine what sort of pattern of strikes might do so,” he said.

Personally, when I pick juries I always have a reason when exercising a challenge, and I think trial lawyers make a mistake when they bounce potential jurors based solely on discriminatory factors. While on the one hand a lawyer wants the jury to look like his own client, on the other hand, those from the same racial/ethnic/national/gender group may also be the harshest critic of their own. Picking a jury takes a lot more subtlety than simply looking at the superficial features of your fellow man.

January 30th, 2007

Scooter Libby Trial – A Truly Bizarre Trial Experience

This isn’t about New York personal injury law, but it is about trial practice, and is simply too good to pass up…a trial observer (then-Time magazine correspondent John Dickerson) that suddenly finds the testimony is about him…it comes from Slate at this link…this is the lede and the end, but the middle is well worth reading…

Dispatches From the Scooter Libby Trial

I wanted to raise my hand and ask, “Your Honor, may I approach the bench?”

I was at the Scooter Libby trial to cover it, and all of a sudden, I found myself in the middle of the case. In his testimony today, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told the courtroom — which included me — that when I was a White House correspondent for Time magazine, he had told me that Joe Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA.

He did?

Everyone had heard about Robert Novak, Matt Cooper, and Judith Miller, the reporters who had received the Valerie Plame leak. But now Ari was saying I was in that club, too.
…

Only moments before Ari’s surprise disclosure, I had been trying to figure out what my lede would be for today. I enjoyed seeing Ari have to answer questions under oath, which he never had to do in the White House briefing room. As a reporter, I’d always tried to put him in the witness box, and he always climbed out. Now he may have put me in there.

There’s nothing quite like the heart-pumping drama and surprise of a good trial.

January 11th, 2007

State Farm to Pay Punitive Damages. Again.

State Farm has done it again. Some years back they made quite a bit of law in a case called State Farm v. Campbell that went up to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of punitive damages that they had to pay for their conduct.

Now they got smacked again by a jury, this time for $2.5M in a case they offered to settle for $20K. This time, it was people victimized once by Katrina, before State Farm got to them for a second go-round:

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. must pay a Mississippi couple $2.7 million for the loss of their property, a judge and jury ruled in a test case over how much Hurricane Katrina damage is covered by insurance.

The judge, deciding actual damages without the jury, awarded $223,000 for the home and belongings of Norman and Genevieve Broussard of Biloxi, Mississippi. The jury awarded punitive damages of $2.5 million for State Farm’s improper conduct in processing the claim…

The Broussards argued their house had been destroyed by wind or a tornado, a type of damage covered by insurance. State Farm, which is owned by policy holders, argued at trial that the loss stemmed from flooding, which the company’s policy didn’t cover.
…

[U.S. District Judge L.T. ] Senter called the company’s handling of the claim “impermissible,” saying it offered the couple no choice except to sue over their claim.

“I find the defendant did not have any legal or arguable reason for refusing to pay,” Senter said today in federal court.
…

Senter ruled today that Bloomington, Illinois-based State Farm, the largest U.S. auto and home insurer, failed to present enough evidence for the jury to be able to find that the policy terms didn’t cover the damage.
…

The Broussards‘ attorney Bill Walker told the jury that his clients had been needlessly wronged by State Farm.

“Did they act like a good neighbor?” he asked, referring to the company’s famous slogan. “No, they acted like a cheat. They acted like a chiseler.”