Articles Tagged with trial

It may seem like a personal injury trial that involves an automobile accident, especially one with clear liability, would not need an abundance of experts to make a case to a jury. In fact, to many people, in cases where negligence is clear, the case may seem “easy.” But in fact, even a straightforward auto injury case, can end up involving a multitude of experts.

Who is an Expert?

An expert is needed to testify about matters that require more than what a layperson would know in a given field. In fact, it may even require testimony beyond what someone who is just working in a given field would ordinarily know.

A few weeks back, we discussed how the relationship between a defendant and the doctors or experts testifying on his behalf can be discovered by the Plaintiff to be used as evidence of bias. Generally, the longer and more sustained the relationship between a party and a doctor, the more likely it is that a jury will infer that the expert’s testimony is biased towards that party.

But defendants also like to use the victim’s lawyers relationship with physicians as a weapon as well, in an attempt to avoid its own responsibility for its negligent acts.

How Clients are Referred to Doctors

When there are trials on television or in movies, it is common that they skip or edit out much of the evidentiary arguments, the direct examinations, and often even opening statement. But one area that seems to be a great point of entertainment is the closing argument.

The public seems to be fascinated with closing arguments, which appear to be a free-for-all, where attorneys can say what they want and act how they want, often moving a jury to tears. But in fact, there are rules about what can and can’t be said at closing, many of which are ignored by pop culture’s depictions of trials.

The Rules of Closing Arguments