Medical Talk and Jury

[Margil]

State of California.

Over at another forum we are discussing a case about a doctor's horrible medical malpractice to a patient. Here is just one sentence of what was said by a medical professional.

.....(victim) was on Flomax-this is for BPH-and would cause a change in metabolizing meds cleared thru renal system-slowing the elimination of the active metabolites and compounding the effect of overdoses.....

And then someone responded:

Imagine if you were a jury and had to listen to those terms all day over several days while they argued and counterargued every point medically. It would be dizzying. And a jury out of caution when they are confused would most likely acquit then find guilty.

Ginvid is right, the more technical the case gets, the more experts takes the stand, the more the terminology is introduced it becomes harder for the jury to follow and understand it and they are less likely to give a guilty verdict.

I just don't understand. Is that person right?

Then, how do they deal with many other cases involving medical misconduct?

In the courtroom, don't medical experts break down their explanations to the simplest form so that EVERYONE can understand?
__________________

 

[army judge]

State of California.

Over at another forum we are discussing a case about a doctor's horrible medical malpractice to a patient. Here is just one sentence of what was said by a medical professional.



And then someone responded:


I just don't understand. Is that person right?

Then, how do they deal with many other cases involving medical misconduct?

In the courtroom, don't medical experts break down their explanations to the simplest form so that EVERYONE can understand?

A good trial attorney always ensures that the jury and the judge understand technical lingo.
But, the same thing can be said for street lingo, jargon, vernacular, slang, broken accents, and regional accents.
You must make sure the jury and judge understand what you or your witness said.
How do you know?
How does a good mechanic know a wrench by just touching?
How does someone hit a 100MPH fastball?

If you fail to do that, unusual verdicts will abound.
The DNA "speak" that was tossed about in the OJ Murder Trial immediately comes to mind.
Don't think for a minute the "glove" moment wasn't planned.
That doesn't mean that you'd ever get to use it, but you plan for it.
You use it when the opportunity arises.
Juries understood the "glove" moment.
One could argue it was misleading, nevertheless, it was understood.

Good trial lawyers are like like good baseball players, plumbers, teachers; they are learned, but trial practice comes more naturally to some, than others.

Your example above illustrates how a great case can be lost.
A good trial lawyer would say, "Great answer, doctor. You're certainly quite learned in your profession and that explanation would astound a classroom full of your colleagues . But, I'm just an old, hill country, Texas lawyer; help me understand all that technical stuff."
The judge will usually chuckle, as will opposing counsel, the jury, the witness-physician, and the gallery.
But, you get the doctor to "splain it to 'em".

You always have to make sure the judge and jury understand.
You also have to know when LESS IS MORE!