Trial Attorney Blog

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many victims of defective products which have caused serious injury and sometimes death. Recently, there was a recall on a device meant to save lives, a defibrillator. Each year 250,000 to 450,000 Americans suffer a sudden heart stoppage or cardiac arrest due to a rhythm disturbance or silent coronary artery disease, according to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. About 95 percent of those people die. A defibrillator delivers a shock which is meant to restore a person’s regular heart rhythm. Zoll Medical Corp has issued an alert because some of its AED Plus external defibrillators, used in public settings such as airports, have defective batteries and software, leading to failures to deliver a shock and two patient deaths. On February 2009, Zoll began asking customers to download new software that will help detect a potential defective battery. In addition to airports, the potentially defective defibrillators may be located in health clubs and schools. If you know of one of these products manufactured by Zoll, you should advise the owner that the manufacturer is asking customers to download free software from its website which will diagnose whether the batteries need replacement.

Rule No. 2 of 12: The successful cross-examiner always has a purpose for each question that is asked or not asked.
When preparing a cross-examination of any particular witness, counsel has to consider what they want to say about the witness in closing argument. Sometimes, if a witness does not hurt your client’s case, the best cross-examination is to ask no questions at all. The general rule is “no harm no foul,” therefore, if a witness is called against your client and ends up testifying in a manner that really does not hurt them in any way, the best cross-examination may be one that asks no questions whatsoever. However, if questions are asked, they have to be asked in such a way as to do no harm to one’s case.
Sometimes, the purpose of the cross-examination may be to conceal the fact that you do not really have anything to attack the witness on. In other situations as addressed above, it may be possible to successfully impeach the witness through prior inconsistent statements. Either way, as part of the preparation by counsel, in advance of trial, counsel has to consider each question being considered for the witness and has to satisfy him/herself that the question will achieve a goal and that the goal is worth pursuing with respect to the cross-examination of that witness. Again, the successful cross-examiner always have a purpose for each question that is asked or not asked.

The news media in Georgia frequently reports on tragic accidents in which young children are killed by cars traveling in reverse. Many times these accidents occur when a parent is backing out of a driveway or garage.

According to data from a recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shifting into reverse may be more dangerous than previously thought. According to the first study conducted on the issue, 221 people were killed by vehicles backing up in 2007. That is more than 4 deaths per week. In the same period, about 14,000 people were injured in backup accidents.

The United States Congress passed legislation last year to attempt to address the issue. The Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act, is named for a 2-year-old boy who was accidentally backed over and killed by his father on Long Island, New York. It was this legislation that prompted the new study.

In our prior four (4) entries, concerning the art of cross-examination, we have discussed the objectives of cross-examination and have suggested that there are four (4) alternative purposes for successful cross-examination that should be considered by trial counsel. In this article, we are going to address techniques involved in successful cross-examination. Any experienced trial counsel will recognize these rules as being fundamental to a truly successful cross-examination of any material witness.
Rule No. 1 of 12: The successful cross-examination is well prepared in advance of the exercise.
When you shoot from the hip during a trial, you generally shoot yourself in the foot. Depositions, witness statements, exhibits and everything in the file must be carefully considered and reviewed in advance of trial to find material for suitable cross-examination. As an example, trial counsel should look for opportunities to get two witnesses for the opposing side to contradict one another. Trial counsel must review every single thing in the file to see what objectives can be met when considering the four (4) alternative purposes of cross-examination. This requires extreme attention to detail and meticulous preparation in advance of trial. Even the nature of the questioning, as we shall see in a later discussion of the discipline required for this art is very important because preparation in advance of trial allows counsel to craft questions carefully, usually in a leading manner, which will insure that counsel gets the answers they seek while at the same time insuring against eliciting answers they do not seek.

Our Georgia automobile accident attorneys often review crashes involving very small cars, sometimes referred to as “micro cars.” We have frequently noticed that there seems to be a correlation between the severity of injuries suffered in car accidents and the size of the vehicles involved. Now, a study by the Insurance for Highway Safety has confirmed our observations.

In crash tests released this week, the Institute found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart “fortwo,” Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

Sales of small cars soared when gas prices topped $4 per gallon last year but have fallen off as the costs of gasoline has returned to about $2 a gallon and the economic downturn has slowed car sales. The small cars are affordable — prices of the three cars tested range from about $12,000 to $18,000 — and typically achieve 30 miles per gallon or more.

In this our fourth entry, we discuss again the objectives of cross-examination. We have talked about obtaining evidence which is favorable to one’s case, impeaching or corroborating the testimony of another witness in the case and discrediting the testimony of the witness through proof of prior convictions, inconsistent statements or prior writings. In this entry, we address another alternative to cross-examination and that is “to appear to be cross-examining a witness without really doing so” because counsel really does not have anything that can be accomplished otherwise.
A classic example of what we address in this article is the testimony of a wife or close friend who is called to testify in support of their spouse or friend. Here, questions about the relationships with the parties, cross-examination about their having met with lawyers concerning their testimony before taking the stand and other such innocuous matters may appear to be effective cross-examination in front of the jury when in actuality there is very little that can otherwise be accomplished. If the other alternatives of cross-examination are unavailable, that being that there is no ability to impeach the witness and there is no favorable testimony that can be elicited from them (this is the rare case as typically there is always some favorable testimony that can be elicited) then in such a case, counsel should consider a very brief cross-examination which will leave the jury with the impression that no cross-examination is even necessary given the close relationship between the parties.

The third alternative objective of cross-examination is to discredit the testimony of the witness being called by your opponent. This can be done in several ways. The most traditional way is to impeach the witness by proof of conviction of a crime. Another manner is to prove a prior inconsistent statement, most often taken from prior sworn deposition testimony. However, proof of a prior inconsistent statement may also be offered through an inconsistent statement given to an investigator or other third party witness. Additionally, prior statements or writings of the witness can be used to impeach the witness by establishing that on a prior occasion the witness has offered inconsistent evidence in writing.
When attempting to impeach a witness with proof of conviction of a crime, in Georgia, it is necessary that counsel have a certified copy of the conviction available to establish that the witness was, in fact, convicted of the crime at issue. The crime must involve moral turpitude and must not be too remote in time. If the conviction is more than ten (10) years old, it may be inadmissible. Additionally, if a prior criminal act or specific act of misconduct did not result in a conviction, depending upon the peculiar facts if the case, it may or may not be admissible. A conviction for a crime of moral turpitude obviously casts a shadow on a witness’s veracity.
In order to successfully discredit the testimony of the witness, the impeachment of the witness should be material to their overall testimony. Proving prior inconsistent statements of an immaterial nature is not going to be very persuasive for a jury. However, proof of prior inconsistent statements which are material in nature can be extremely important in convincing a jury what the facts are in a particular case. For example, if a plaintiff in a personal injury case has denied any prior injury or illness in prior sworn testimony, and they take the stand and repeat these denials, if they are impeached with prior inconsistent statements to medical doctors, by way of admissions in medical records or otherwise, this could be very detrimental to their case. If it is established that the Plaintiff has suffered prior back injuries when the Plaintiff has testified that he has never had a prior back injury, obviously, the witness has been successfully impeached and the third purpose of cross examination has been achieved, to discredit the testimony being offered.

In our first article on the art of cross-examination, we addressed the first objective of cross-examination, that being an effort to obtain evidence which is favorable to one’s case without attacking the witness. The second alternative purpose of cross-examination, which we address in this article, however, is to impeach or corroborate the testimony of another witness in the case. Here, we do not speak of impeaching the witness offering the testimony or otherwise attacking their credibility, but rather impeaching or corroborating the testimony of another key witness in the case. For example, in a medical malpractice case, if an expert is called to testify that certain fetal monitor strips were illegible and therefore not reliable as evidence, if counsel knows that another witness can persuasively contradict such testimony and/or corroborate it as the case may be, the questions should be asked in such a way as to create for the other witness the best opportunity to either corroborate or impeach the testimony that is offered. Thus, the monitoring strips may be proven to have been perfectly legible and thus the jury may have a different view of whether medical malpractice occurred. Again, this is an important purpose of cross-examination, alternative to the main purpose of impeaching or discrediting the witness testifying.

This entry will be the beginning of a series of blogs on trial techniques used by successful trial attorneys in the representation of their clients. The art of cross-examination is just that, an art, not a science. To be a successful trial lawyer, one has to be successful at cross-examination. This requires some natural ability to think logically in the heat of battle a fundamental understanding of what makes for successful cross-examination and actual trial experience.

As successful trial lawyer does not become a successful cross-examiner imitating what is seen on television or other dramatic adaptations. Life is rarely as dramatic as Perry Mason or Matlock. Also, a trial lawyer does not become successful imitating the style and techniques of others. It is imperative that one be his or herself and develop their own style. If a trial lawyer is authentic and uses proper technique, cross-examination can be effective and the truth will emerge which is, of course, the objective of the exercise.

In this beginning article, we are going to explore, in a series of entries, how one should go about effective cross-examination. What are the objectives of cross-examination? We posit four of them. After discussing these four topics, we shall address Twelve (12) Rules which need to be followed if one is to become a successful cross-examiner. To become proficient in the art of cross-examination, certain rules should always be observed, otherwise the exercise will likely be a failure.

Yamaha Motor Corporation, the manufacturer of Rhino off road vehicles, has recalled the same because of safety issues associated with its Rhino 450, 660 and 700 models. Owners of these Utility Terrain Vehicles (UTVs) are being warned not to use them until certain repairs are made. The repairs that will be made to the vehicles include the installation of a spacebar on the rear wheels as well as the removal of an anti-sway bar which repairs are supposed to reduce the chances of rollovers.

According to a press release issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there have been over 46 deaths involving Rhino 450 and 660 models. Of the rollover related deaths and injuries, which have been reported to the CPSC, many appear to involve turns at relatively low speeds on level terrain. The repair program being announced by the Yamaha Motor Corporation is designed to reduce the chance of rollover but unfortunately, the number of deaths and injuries associated with the use of this product indicates that it is dangerous because of its overall design.

Critics of the ATV charge that the Rhino is top heavy. It has tires that are narrow. The vehicle offers little or no protection for passenger legs in the event of a rollover. Most of the victims of Rhino rollover accidents that survive experience crushed or broken legs, ankles or feet. In some cases, people have been left permanently disabled or have undergone amputations. When children are involved, deaths appear in greater frequency.