The verdict essay

She suffers serious brain damage and becomes an invalid who will spend the rest of her life in a hospital, attached to special equipment to maintain her life. Her sister and brother-in-law, who tell lawyer that her medical care will require a lot of money to have hired him to represent them. Furthermore, Galvan breaks into a nurse’s mailbox to intercept a letter. It means one of the violation of law. Moreover, he also rejects a pretrial settlement offer from the archdiocese without consulting his clients.

I believe that it is also violation of lawyers’ ethics and a misconduct for which a layover can be disbarred. If the situation happens in the real life happens to the real life, it effects to the verdict as itself. Secondly, the problem of mistrial is inside this movie. The judge’s behavior to Frank Galvan questioning a witness before a break was due would seem to me be something be looked at after the trial was over, or even while the trial, if that is the method for a mistrial being declared. Galvan was searching his own witness.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The judge asked him whether he wanted to keep or to take a rest, I thought that it was clearly describing his desire to take a rest. However, Galvan decided to continue on. The judge, being displeased that Galvan did not take his suggestion, distracts Sailing’s questioning and asks question directly through the doctor that wasn’t beneficial to the defense in anyway. The judge then finished off the questioning without asking Galvan if he had any more questions. The entire of this scene seemed very strange to me from a legal perspective.

I know a judge has significant power in his courtroom, and he has the authority to ask a question to a witness, but when it is so clearly biased, it is not something which can be reviewed by person has to review these things for a mistrial to be announced. Moreover, the spy should have drawn an immediate penalty flag. Suspect that the trial should have been stopped right there. In the movie, Galvan does not want a mistrial, but if he lost the verdict, he might have appealed based on this fact.

If so, I consider that he was playing with house money knowing if he lost, he could instantly appeal and get another trial. In the end, the testimony of Cattily Costello IS also questionable. I can Leary say that judge ruled the testimony unacceptable, and instructed the jury to wipe it from their mind. However, what juror, after hearing that the doctors on trial actually were negligent and turned the woman into a vegetable would actually be able to do that. I’m guessing the defense could file an appeal soon based on the testimony and the verdict, again, causing a mistrial.

As a result, if it happens in an actual case, it leads mistakes during the trial, and the judge be threaded of being removed. Thirdly, I believe that an adversarial system’s problem shows up in this movie. In the movie, Gallatin considered Cattail Costello as an important witness and encouraged her to explain on the stand the events leading to the overwhelmed injury to his client testimony that establishes quite clearly that the anesthesiologist had indeed committed misconduct.

Because of the technical reasons based on precedent and procedure, Galvan ‘s adversary influenced the judge to throw out Costello testimony, essentially gutting Paul Newsman’s case. However, the jury made a decision in favor of Newman in the end, owing to the impact of Costello testimony, and partially to the technique with which Galvan persuades the jury, in his summation, that despite the technical basis for declaring Costello testimony to be inadmissible, the responsibility of the legal system is to administer justice based fundamentally on the truth.

The jury agrees: regardless of Costello testimony being stricken from the record, they are convinced that Sailing’s client suffered injustice because of the negligence of the anesthesiologist. However, in the end, Sailing’s victory reflects the potential benefit of the adversarial system because he more skillfully convinced the jury to ignore the technical objections to the nurse’s estimation instead what they knew to be the facts.

Thus, I think advisory system plays an important role in this movie, and in the real life. However, compared with inquisitorial system (normally where judges often investigate cases and claims), the technical elements of the law could have been more heavily emphasized, and it leads a different verdict. In conclusion, there are some legal issues in this movie, and each problem makes us reconsider legal issues as I mentioned above. Thus, it was really good opportunity to understand and think legal issues around us.