Articles Posted in Trial Strategy

In Voir Dire Of Scientific Opinion At Trial: Attacking The Expert Witness, Before He’s Declared An Expert., attorney Anthony Colleluori writes on what he calls “the lack of attack on prosecution experts” in criminal trials that involve IME expert witnesses and police personnel.

Expert witnesses in criminal trials are often members of police forces and Medical Examiner’s offices. The County or State spends a lot of money to train these folks and they go to classes and they attend seminars. They have been on the job (especially in the police detective’s case) They have been on the job…for many years and often personally know the judges they appear before. They also have been found to be experts in dozens of other cases before the one you’re trying so that their being named an expert now is a forgone conclusion. I have watched as they routinely are offered up as experts with nary a sound toward their preclusion as an expert. Why are we defense lawyers giving these people a free ride? I thought about this and decided that, there are a few reasons for the lack of attack on prosecution experts:

1. They almost always get named as experts so we don’t bother to try to keep their testimony out.

In When and How to Object During Deposition, Art of Advocacy blogger Paul Mark Sandler writes that in civil litigation, “objection-free depositions are unheard of.” Attorneys often make unnecessary objections or fail to make them properly when dealing with parties in the case and the opposing expert witness. Sandler says attorneys sometimes waive objections by failing to raise them in a deposition and offers some helpful guidelines for knowing when and how to object.

4. Grounds

How should an objection be made? To be effective, an objection cannot be vague or unclear. Although Maryland Rule 2-415(g) states that the grounds for an objection “need not be given unless requested by a party,” this language presents a trap. If counsel objects to a deposition question that can be immediately cured, the lawyer must state the grounds to avoid waiving it. The objecting attorney must give enough detail to “provide the questioner with the opportunity to obviate the mistake while the deposition is taking place.” (See Davis, 117 Md. App. at 403-04.) This protocol affords the party taking the deposition the chance to re-word the question and cure any problems in it.

In When and How to Object During Deposition, Art of Advocacy blogger Paul Mark Sandler writes that in civil litigation, “objection-free depositions are unheard of.” Attorneys often make unnecessary objections or fail to make them properly when dealing with parties in the case and the opposing expert witness. Sandler says attorneys sometimes waive objections by failing to raise them in a deposition and offers some helpful guidelines for knowing when and how to object.

3. Privilege
If the deposing attorney asks a question that invades a witness’s privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege, the opposing attorney may instruct the witness not to answer. Maryland Discovery Guideline 6 states that where an attorney asserts a claim of privilege at a deposition, the attorney “shall identify during the deposition the nature of the privilege (including work product) which is being claimed” and shall provide certain information about the allegedly privileged communication, including the date and general subject matter of the communication.

In When and How to Object During Deposition, Art of Advocacy blogger Paul Mark Sandler writes that in civil litigation, “objection-free depositions are unheard of.” Attorneys often make unnecessary objections or fail to make them properly when dealing with parties in the case and the opposing expert witness. Sandler says attorneys sometimes waive objections by failing to raise them in a deposition and offers some helpful guidelines for knowing when and how to object.

2. Incurable Defects

Many substantive objections cannot be resolved by a simple rephrasing. If an attorney asks about irrelevant matters, the questions will usually be objectionable no matter how the attorney poses them. For such an “incurable” defect, a timely objection is not necessary under Maryland Rule 2-415(g).

In When and How to Object During Deposition, Art of Advocacy blogger Paul Mark Sandler writes that in civil litigation, “objection-free depositions are unheard of.” Attorneys often make unnecessary objections or fail to make them properly when dealing with parties in the case and the opposing expert witness. Sandler says attorneys sometimes waive objections by failing to raise them in a deposition and offers some helpful guidelines for knowing when and how to object.

1. What objections are necessary?

At a deposition, an attorney is required to object to those defects that are immediately curable–that is, irregularities that opposing counsel can correct at the deposition. Such defects include procedural matters, such as the manner of taking a deposition, the form of questions or answers, the oath or affirmation, and the conduct of the parties.

In Determining When Your Medical Malpractice Case Has Merit, expert witness Barry E. Gustin, MD, MPH, FAAEM, and primary founder of the American College of Forensic Medicine, writes on strategy in medical negligence cases.

To summarize … consider not taking medical negligence cases in the following instances:

6. The defendant is a well-known and highly respected physician that most reputable medical experts refuse to testify against. It will be very difficult to find an appropriate expert; and even if one is found, because of the defendant’s standing in the medical community, it may be more difficult to obtain a judgment against him. Also, if the procedure, treatment, or medical subspecialty is rare, then it will be very difficult finding a medical expert witness to testify.

In Determining When Your Medical Malpractice Case Has Merit, expert witness Barry E. Gustin, MD, MPH, FAAEM, and primary founder of the American College of Forensic Medicine, writes on strategy in medical negligence cases.

To summarize … consider not taking medical negligence cases in the following instances:

1. The medical issues are complex. The more complex the medical issues, the more difficult it will be to convince the jury that the doctor committed malpractice. If a case involves multiple physicians, some of whom committed no negligent acts, it may be exceedingly difficult to separate out the truly negligent care. Jurors may view this kind of lawsuit as an unwarranted attack on everyone. Plus the more doctors who are involved, the more costly the undertaking, in terms of obtaining more medical experts.

In Determining When Your Medical Malpractice Case Has Merit, expert witness Barry E. Gustin, MD, MPH, FAAEM, and primary founder of the American College of Forensic Medicine, writes on strategy in the medical negligence case.

Two objective case analyses are touted by many seasoned medical malpractice litigators as the judicious approach to working up a potential case. When the two reviews are in concordance, you will be on solid footing and well on your way to maximizing your chances for a successful outcome. If there is a discrepancy between the two reviews, then it will be easier for you to understand the weaknesses of your case. The knowledge you attain in this way will help you to decide whether you want to drop, or stay with the case. The costs for the in-depth medical expert record review and analysis should be in the neighborhood of $1000 to $2000 per medical expert; again depending on the volume of records, complexity of the case, and the specialty of the medical expert doing the record review.

Case review is both a science and an art. The physician reviewer must be adroit at dissecting out the critical facts and determining whether or not the appropriate standards of practice were breached. Moreover, the reviewer must decide whether issues of causation clearly reinforce any alleged departures from the standard of care. Attention must also be given to damages. The issues can be quite complex. Are the injuries or disabilities due to malpractice or are they a maloccurrence, an unfortunate bad outcome that could not have been prevented?

In Determining When Your Medical Malpractice Case Has Merit, expert witness Barry E. Gustin, MD, MPH, FAAEM, and primary founder of the American College of Forensic Medicine, writes on strategy in the medical negligence case.

It has been said that a little knowledge can be dangerous. Nowhere is this more obvious than in medical negligence case analysis. The quality , credibility, and scope of the record analysis will only be as good as the reviewing individual(s). Bottom line: Choose reviewers wisely; pay appropriately. Typical costs for detailed initial case screening average $500 to $1000 depending on the size of medical records, complexity of the case, and the specialty of the reviewing physician.

Cases that are deemed provisionally meritorious should be sent for a second review by medical experts identified by the screening physicians, who are prepared to give oral testimony if called upon. Careful attention should be given to determining who the medical experts should be. Ideally, a physician consultant experienced in medical-legal matters should assist you in the identification of the appropriate medical specialists. This person can “talk shop” with the potential expert and be in a better position to decide whether any given medical expert is the right person for the case. By analogy, you, as an attorney, would be in a much better position than a layperson to recommend another reputable and successful attorney in a specific legal specialty area. Thus, it makes good sense to establish a relationship with a physician consultant experienced in medical-legal case analysis.

In Determining When Your Medical Malpractice Case Has Merit, expert witness Barry E. Gustin, MD, MPH, FAAEM, and primary founder of the American College of Forensic Medicine, writes that “To accept or reject a medical negligence case: this is the single most important decision you will make when processing a medical negligence case.” Choosing unwisely, either a case with good potential will be lost or an unmeritorious case will tie you up for long periods of time resulting in great expense.

To make an informed decision about accepting a case, you must have the facts, not only those you obtain from your client, but more importantly, those obtained from qualified medical experts after a thorough review of the medical records.

It is not enough to have medical records reviewed by just anyone. Medical records should be screened by those specially capable of understanding and identifying all medical-legal issues. These individuals should be experienced in medical-legal analysis and board-certified in the medical specialty where the alleged negligence occurred. Even better, the medical records can be reviewed in a collaborative setting, where the records are screened by one board-certified physician who then confers with other medical specialists to form consensus opinions.