ok,so you know there are rules regarding closing statements. It appears the opposing counsel may have violated the rules. What has your attorney done about it? Again, this appears to point at the failure of your attorney in representing you. While a judge is in charge of the proceeding, they are not going to do the attorneys work for them. If Was up to your attorney to bring the violation to the courts attention. Failing to do so is tacit acceptance there was nothing improper said.
IMO, your double-talk and bias is nauseating. But I never expected to influence anyones opinion of a courtroom. You guys love this stuff, and how could you if you thought of it as a big sewer with guys running around in Armani suits.
For me, I know what I experienced and nobody can convince me otherwise. Even my surgeon who is a regular expert witness for the defense 75% of the time thinks very little of our court system because he is dragged in to swim in that sewer. So if I was dragged in at his capacity, I'd charge $15,000 for one hour of testimony too...just for the dry cleaning bill to get the stink off.
your expert witness is not dragged into anything. He can choose to not be an expert witness. He chooses to do what he does. He does what he does because it’s a lucrative business, one that he has chosen to be involved in. His feigned disgust is ridiculous. If it was so terrible he would not offer his services as an expert witness.
and I’ll presume your lawyer did nothing regarding the improper closing statements since you failed to speak to that.
It is not perjury. It was not a statement given as testimony in court and the attorney was simply summarizing the evidence as he saw it. The jury of course heard the testimony of the doctors as well as your attorney's closing argument and could easily decide for itself whether there was proof of injury. There was no perjury and, unless the jury was sleeping through the trial, no harm to your case since the jury knew what the experts had said. If anything, making a statement like that in closing arguments when the jury had clearly heard otherwise would work against the defense attorney and his client. It makes his arguments less trustworthy.
When a person has nothing they go after words like 'dragged.' Also my surgeon never said he was "disgusted" with the court system. Besides, did you ever do a job you were not happy with, but charged extra because of it?your expert witness is not dragged into anything. He can choose to not be an expert witness. He chooses to do what he does. He does what he does because it’s a lucrative business, one that he has chosen to be involved in. His feigned disgust is ridiculous. If it was so terrible he would not offer his services as an expert witness.
After four long hours of deposition and then five days of trial by a very skilled trial attorney, I see you are an amateur at this. Don't change careers anytime soon...just stick to the anonymous internet.
I was staying on point about lying attorneys. How my attorney countered it does not negate the fact that the other attorney lied.and I’ll presume your lawyer did nothing regarding the improper closing statements since you failed to speak to that.
I will discuss my case further after you tell about your case where you claim you were in a similar chair as mine.
For you to rationalize for that statement drags you down to his level, IMO. But attorneys are not high on my list right now, so join the club.
The opposing lawyer's comment that there "was no injury" is not improper in a closing statement and thus there would be no valid objection to make. It is argument about the evidence presented, which the attorney may do. Now, as described by the OP the opposing attorney's statement would be a poor choice by him because the jury will have heard both experts testimony that said there was injury and that would discredit the attorney's closing statement. As a result I suspect that's not exactly what happened and that the OP's memory of it is not perfect. It is well known too that person's bias in a matter will affect how he or she perceives what he/she sees and hears, and this may be a factor, too. But even if it was exactly as the OP described, there was nothing improper in the closing statements made. Stupid, maybe, but not improper.
You had stake in the case. You of course believe that you had injuries that were caused by the defendant. So of course you believe that the opposing attorney's argument about the evidence is not correct. I totally get that and understand it. But the attorney is free to argue that the evidence did not truly show injury. His job is to argue against your case and for his client, after all. Now if the jury did think from the evidence that injury was shown did then he's creating a problem for himself in making the statement, but regardless the statement is not improper, not a violation of the rules, and certainly not perjury. You need to understand that the statement was argument, not testimony. There is a huge difference between the two.
What I also learned from this nightmare is that some folks have no morals and will counter and discredit whatever anyone says. Lawyers work at doing that to perfectly good people which is why I say they work in the sewer. Greed, misrepresenting, mischaracterizing, lying, and misleading at its lowest. I have a whole new low for lawyers now, whether what they do is legal or not. I don't care, they are scum. Lawyer should never be used in the same sentence as doctor.
TM, you are just a little better at this game you play than jk is.
As to your verbatim statement. Those few words: maybe. The words that put them in context were absent. That makes the statement meaningless. I’m sure he said many more words than simply; there was no injury. If he didn’t, it was a very short closing statement.
but hey, maybe the attorney was as dumb as you suggest. I guess he was smart enough to win his clients case though.
Regardless, obviously there was an injury but that isn’t the only thing that is important to your case. Before liability can determined, culpability is determined and just that there was an injury proves neither. The words surrounding that three word statement matter.
and I have no need to talk about my case. It is irrelevant to yours. I made my statement simply in response to your statement that I’ve never been through a similar situation. I have. It’s as simple as that. That’s all that needs to be known about it.