Confidential(c) to slaggo, RSE, McCarthy and any other lawyers

[Overbrook]

I found this pretty interesting. How about some legal thoughts........

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150125_Lawyer_faces__1M_in_sanctions_because_her_witness_stumbled.html

[slag]

Seems excessive.

I'm wondering if she has a reputation of being an attorney likes to ring bells that can't be "unrung" (as the saying goes).

If you don't understand that, there is a trial tactic to have a witness say shit that's objectionable because the jury hears it and you "can't unring a bell" even in the judge tells the jury to ignore it.

Here you had an pre-testimony order not to ring that particular bell ... but it still seems excessive unless she was shown to have either: (a) definitely failed to instruct the witness not to testify about smoking (which is unclear from the story) or (b) told the witness to intentionally violate the order and mention it.

[McCarthy12]

Even if she did instruct him to say it - a million dollars?! That's insane. Just disbar her. Sounds like a butt hurt judge with a chip on his shoulder. Not too surprising given everything I've read about the Philly courts.

[Overbrook]

As if the 1 million wasn't enough.....

this line also blew me away...................


"A jury verdict came down against the defendants and in favor of Wilson's daughter for $190,000, an amount that barely covered the cost of the expert witnesses"


Barely covered???? WTF???

[slag]

It appeared from the article that he hit her for the mil because that's what it cost the plaintiff's firm to do the do-over.

BTW - I always wonder about media reports on legal matters. I was involved in a couple of cases back in the day the made the papers. To say the media fucked up the legal points of the story is like saying Andy Reid blew a timeout a few times.

[McCarthy12]

Yeah, that's for sure. I always take the newspapers with a grain of salt.

Idk man, seems absurd regardless of the reason. Reeks of a judge just wanted to show someone who's boss. And like I said, everything I've read and heard about tbe Philly judiciary since I moved out here makes it hard for me to give the judge the benefit of the doubt.

[McCarthy12]

Unreal. Experts are crazy expensive.

[JuTMSY4]

Unreal. Experts are crazy expensive.

When I was clerking, my judge presided over a massive case - just unreal numbers, briefings, reports, etc. Several times, experts were asked how much they were being paid. Numbers well over 1 million dollars were used repeatedly and there were something like 50 experts used in the case (the bulk testified).

I think the expenses just on testimony were, at least in a few cases, well into the hundred thousand range. And the case was taken on one side as a contingency. Just nuts how much money is spent.

[TerpEagle]

Unreal. Experts are crazy expensive.

Somebody has got to back up your arguments with facts and analysis.

[JuTMSY4]

facts and analysis

Somebody has got to back up your arguments with facts and analysis.

bought and paid for.

[McCarthy12]

Haha exactly - the facts and analysis as I would like them to be. Experts give opinions. Juries determine fact (that's the scary part).

[RSE]

Jurors are a lot smarter, and juries operate a lot more intelligently, than you give them credit for. I'm kind of disappointed you have that attitude.

[TerpEagle]

Jurors are a lot smarter, and juries operate a lot more intelligently, than you give them credit for. I'm kind of disappointed you have that attitude.

Does a lawyer want a jury that really thinks for itself? If you're trying a case say that involves pharmaceutical malpractice/liability - would you want a juror who works in a pharmaceutical lab and/or is an expert in chemistry, medicinal process control, etc.?

I would think not because that juror has a great ability to form their own opinions based on outside knowledge and understanding of the problem compared to average-joe who only has testimony to educate them.

So perhaps juries are intelligent and smart, but how educated are they relatively speaking?

[slag]

What does that have to do with whether juries are smart and operate intelligently?

[TerpEagle]

bought and paid for.

For a case last year, a fellow engineer and I did four investigations that required us to fly to the location and each averaged 3 10 hour days outside of travel. Now, I know that Southwest and Fairfield Inn are pretty high end mode of travel but it still gets expensive and we've gotta keep the lights on.

Unfortunately we have yet to outfit ourselves with mahogany conference tables and 700 series BMWs like the attorneys that require our expertise. I suppose arguments that are bought and paid for are somewhat nobler and more valuable.