It is well into the trial of a medical malpractice case that the discussion turns to attorney comment or jury instruction on witnesses who have not testified. Up until that point, the jury has been told to limit its consideration to the evidence which has been vetted by the court and allowed to enter the record and remain there. The question becomes what the jury may be told regarding testimony which has neither been vetted nor heard.
Section 1:75 of the Pattern Jury Instructions suggests by its very existence that the jury’s attention should be drawn to what we commonly refer to as the “missing witness.” The very title of that section, which includes “Failure to Produce Witness,” has a pejorative tone. Why should the decision of counsel not to call a particular witness be termed a “failure” to do so when the determination of whose testimony is required is such a complex and subjective judgment?
Background
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
