"THE VERDICT"

129 minutes, Rated M Available on videocassette

Whats it about? The pluses The minuses The legal point Who put it together? Whos who? The performances Our verdict

Whats it about?
Its an easy assignment to review a movie like "The Verdict". Why? Because it is consistently well made; it makes sense and does not rely on convenient plot devices; there are no car chases; the acting and direction are absolutely top notch more of this later Once met, Frank Galvin is a lawyer you will not forget. He tests our sense of humanity yes, we are asked to feel something for a lawyer who has clearly seen better times. Hes an alcoholic, and in some respects thats the outcome of most of his problems the source is less clear, though there are incidents aplenty: hes nearly been drummed out of the lawyers union; hes divorced, and it was not pretty; there have been lost professional opportunities. So why should we feel anything but disgust? After all, shouldnt a lawyer like Frank Galvin find himself another profession, or take an extended "rest" at the seaside? Well, he has an office of sorts true, hes not there much, just picking up the mail and then off to a pinball parlour before another session at the pub, and if hes really lucky, a little female companionship. To the rescue, although hes no white knight, comes Mickey Morrissey. Hes the sort of friend we all want full of tough love, but in the end willing to come through for a mate who has really lost his way. The salvation comes in the shape of a negligence suit. A woman patient in a hospital has suffered terrible brain injury because of a botched operation, and all Franks friends expect him to do is settle the case out of court and collect his one-third fee. And thus begins Frank Galvins greatest journey, though it will be unexpected and hazardous (as all the best cinematic journeys are). The turning point comes when Galvin visits the hospital where the young woman, his client, is in a coma its not the woman he comes face to face with, of course, but himself. Is this what he has come to, making telephone calls to settle a persons life with less interest than the next round of scotch? It is a defining moment, and everything that happens can be traced back to this encounter.

The pluses

The movie doesnt take the easy way out in lesser hands, it might have been your standard tale of courage, where the hero pulls himself back from the brink just in time to save the world. In "The Verdict" we are asked to look at the moral dilemmas that accompany Galvins desperate attempt for resurrection. Does he confuse his job getting a settlement for the comatose woman with his own salvation? And if so, is this right, or is it Galvins job to take the money (on behalf of his client) and not take a legal gamble that might prove disastrous? So this is a long way from your average court room thriller, but this only serves to make the court room the absolute focus of our attention Galvin cannot save himself if he cannot win the case! There is much at stake here.

The minuses
This is not a criticism, but if you want an edge-of your-seat thriller in the vein of "The Firm", this may not be the movie for you (though it would be a pity to miss it). If theres any real criticism of this movie, its that it takes itself a bit too seriously, and the dialogue is too important. There are certainly serious issues on trial here, but you have to wonder whether all the sympathy for Galvin is worth it! After all, he wasnt much of a lawyer, and he did do a good job of stuffing up his life!

The legal point

So this movie is about a negligence case that Frank Galvin is meant to "settle" what does all this mean? "Negligence" is a court action that is based on what is called "torts" which is a branch of the law that deals with the duty that citizens owe to each other. So, in this movie, it deals with the duty that doctors owe to their patients. To prove that the doctor has treated the young woman in the story in a negligent manner, Frank has to prove that the doctor or hospital owed a duty to their patient (which all hospitals do); that they breached that duty to act with care; and that the young woman suffered some damage because of that action (well, shes in a coma!). Most importantly, the damage she suffered must have been foreseeable. So, if she was in a coma because of a reaction to surgery that was rare and could not have been foreseen, the hospital would not be liable for her condition. What is the standard of the care - the hospital or surgeon must act with reasonable skill. What does it mean for a lawyer to "settle" a case? This means the dispute is resolved without the intervention of a court (or its settled before the court case is finished).

Who put it together?

Sidney Lumet is justifiably lionised as one of the great post-war directors. His repertoire is truly impressive, and ambitious, crossing boundaries and styles that have rarely been duplicated. Hes the force behind "Dog Day Afternoon", the brilliant Al Pacino drama; "Serpico" (same actor); "Long Days Journey Into Night" with Katherine Hepburn; "Network" with Peter Finch and Faye Dunaway; "The Pawnbroker" with Rod Steiger; and "Fail Safe", with Henry Fonda perched on the edge of destruction. David Mamet wrote this movie. He is best known as an American playwright who dabbles in Hollywood he also wrote "The Untouchables", which made it a cut above the rest. You should check out the more than interesting "House of Games", which he directed and wrote we know people who have raved about that film. He also wrote the play and film script for "Glengarry Glen Ross", which starred Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, and Alec Baldwin.

Whos who?
Paul Newman went from the navy to Broadway he met his second (and still wife) Joanne Woodward in the production of "Picnic". From there it was off to Hollywood and the unbelievable Roman costume drama "The Silver Chalice" this film only remains known as Newmans debut, and would otherwise have long gone to the movie junkyard. But "Somebody Up There Likes Me" followed this is the story of world champion boxer Rocky Graziano, and is everything "Rocky" would like to be. Do yourself a favour and see this it would be available on videocassette in many larger video stores. There were other classic performances to follow see all of these: "The Hustler", a brilliant study of obsession and pool halls; "Sweet Bird of Youth" and "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", the Tennessee Williams plays put to film; "Cool Hand Luke", one of the best prison movies of all time ("what we have here is a failure to communicate"); "The Long Hot Summer"; "The Young Philadelphians, another film about lawyers worth seeing when it next comes to television; "Exodus", where hes a little miscast but still manages to bring epic drama to the story of the birth of Israel; Hitchcocks "Torn Curtain"; the Western "Hombre"; the classic Western comedy "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"; "The Sting"; "Absence of Malice", where he plays a man intent on revenge; Scorseces "The Colour of Money", with Tom Cruise, a sequel to "The Hustler"; "Mr and Mrs Bridge; "The Hudsucker Proxy", terrible title but good film with Tim Robbins; and the wonderful "Nobodys Fool" wit Jessica Tandy. He was nominated 6 times for a Best Actor Oscar before he won in 1986 for "Colour of Money" he has since been nominated again. And for good money, he owns a massively successful salad dressing company that donates all its profits to charity.

James Mason began his career as an architect, but it was the stage that got his interest. It was in England that he hit it big with "The Man In Grey", in which he played the Marquis of Rohan. He continued to play the sophisticated Englishman (or Bostonian or someone with an elegant accent, a poor mans Cary Grant) after he went to Hollywood. He is probably best known as Judy Garlands mentor, Norman Maine, in "A Star Is Born" (not the terrible Barbara Streisand remake). It is always the voice we remember a voice to die for! See also Hitchcocks "North By Northwest" and "Lolita". Jack Warden was best known in his early days for another great court room thriller, "Twelve Angry Men", also directed by Sidney Lumet, and starring the brilliant Henry Fonda. He can be seen on video with Warren Beatty in "Heaven Can Wait", where he plays the football coach (also worth seeing). Charlotte Rampling is not a household name, though that would seem to have been by her own choice, because she has everything needed to succeed in Hollywood. She has opted instead for European films, ("The Damned", "The Night Porter") great presence, great voice, beautiful face.

The performances
There is rarely an occasion to criticise Paul Newman, and this is no exception. Where he had to look like a young lion ("Cat On A Hot Tin Roof", "Somebody Up There Likes Me", "Cool Hand Luke") he was; where he was asked to be the older gun ("Butch Cassidy", "The Sting") that was no problem; now he is required to be the over-the-hill lawyer who shows the ravages of his unfortunate ways, and he pulls that rabbit out as well. Its a bit of a shock to see a grizzled and drained Paul Newman, but he is completely believable as the drunken Frank Galvin, with rheumy eyes and the sunken look of a man with everything to regret and nothing left to gain. Newman is marvellous he was nominated for an Academy Award, but was beaten by Ben Kingsley in "Gandhi (how times have changed the rest of the competition that year included Jack Lemmon, Dustin Hoffman, and Peter OToole). Newman is that rarest of actors never less than excellent, sometimes plain brilliant. He makes the character of Frank Galvin, maybe especially because it is Paul Newman Galvin has seen better days, and it is impossible to watch Newman and not recall the days when the face was tighter and the body was a coiled spring. Jack Warden is not a name that springs to mind, but he is just great as Galvins old law partner. Youll know him when you see him, and you will not be able to remember a bad performance from this character actor.

Charlotte Rampling goes a long way with those bedroom eyes. She exudes a strange ambivalence, and we are never quite sure what to make of her (until it becomes obvious). The great James Mason, in one of his last screen appearances, is everything you want from an Evil One. Weve met lawyers like him before at Law in the Lounge, and he does it with the flourish of an actor who once duelled with swords in "The Prisoner of Zenda" and "The Return Of The Scarlett Pimpernel". He received an Academy Award nomination for this part.

Our verdict
The ending is great worth waiting for, and worthy of further thought is he still drinking? Not? What did you think? This movie tends to go on a bit, but it is a superior drama with its heart in the right place. The acting is top of the line, the cast uniformly excellent, the direction is taut, and the script is at time brilliant and always interesting. Clearly we liked it a lot! And it is such a pleasure to spend a couple of hours in the company of Paul Newman, who makes the plot quite believable and compelling. This movie was nominated for Academy Awards for Best Picture; Actor (Newman); Supporting Actor (James Mason); Director (Sidney Lumet); and screenplay (Mamet).

The Verdict (1982) Reviewed by Colin Jacobson Every year, I like to see all of the Oscar Best Picture nominees before the ceremony occurs. This doesnt always - or even usually - happen, but I make the attempt. The first year I made it through all five prior to the show took place back in 1983. I barely got through them all, as I took in the fifth film on the day prior to the presentation, but I managed to do it. Some times I have no strong opinion about what I want to win. That didnt happen in regard to the nominees for 1982, as E.T. the Extraterrestrial was my easy choice. I adored E.T. and felt seriously cheesed when it lost to the long and smug Gandhi. I would have been peeved no matter what beat E.T., but some of the other selections would have been more acceptable than Gandhi. I suppose Richard Attenboroughs epic might have bested Missing, but Id definitely take Tootsie as the better flick. Logically, that comedy should have been my second pick for 1982s Best Picture. However, it wasnt. Instead, I preferred the one I saw last of the five. I didnt watch The Verdict until the day before the Oscar ceremony, but it become my second favorite. That probably shouldnt come as a surprise. Ive always liked courtroom dramas, and The Verdict seemed to provide a satisfying affair. 20 years later, the movie still has some moments, but I must admit it doesnt work quite as well for me.

At the start of The Verdict, we meet Frank Galvin (Paul Newman), a down-on-his-luck alcoholic lawyer reduced to ambulance chaser status. When his assistant Mickey (Jack Warden) hands him an easy case as a way to get back on his feet, Galvin plans to settle and move on with his life. However, some of his youthful idealism stirs in him when he actually deals with the case. A young woman entered a coma during childbirth, and malpractice may have occurred. When Galvin actually sees the comatose woman in person, he decides to take the case to court, against the wishes of his clients, the womans sister and husband. This puts Galvin up against the powerful Catholic Church community in Boston, the group that runs the hospital. It also pits Galvin against Ed Concannon (James Mason), one of the citys top attorneys. Galvin battles against the odds. With his meager resources, he attempts to cobble together his case, but almost everything works against him. At least he meets a babe named Laura (Charlotte Rampling), and she seems to help, though appearances can be deceiving. All of this leads to the climactic courtroom hearing, where Galvin will ultimately sink or swim. I wont reveal the ending, but dont expect anything shocking. As a personality, Galvin feels like an extension of Fast Eddie Felson from 1961s The Hustler. You sense that Galvin once possessed tremendous skill and potential, but various life issues beat him into the wreck he became. Galvin sure seems closer to the original Felson that does the version of that character seen in the sequel to The Hustler, 1986s The Color of Money. In The Verdict, Newman displays a sense of weariness and confusion totally absent from the inappropriately cocksure Felson of Money. Really, Newmans performance is one of the few reasons Verdict stands out at all after all this time. Just like E.T. got jobbed when it lost to Gandhi, Newman should have beaten Ben Kingsley for Best Actor that year. Newman demonstrates a remarkable lack of ego as he makes Galvin a realistic loser. He allows just enough of Galvins potential to emerge, but he keeps the character low-key and pained throughout the movie. Newman nicely suppresses his own natural charisma to make Galvin a fully formed person. The rest of the cast also adds depth to the movie. Mason seems particularly noteworthy. He makes Concannon rich and believable. The role easily could have turned into a stock villain, but though we root against Concannon, we never really dislike him. Even after some of the lawyers sleaziness comes to light, we still view him as a reasonably noble man and dont think of him as a bad guy. In lesser hands, the part could - and probably should - have become one-dimensional, but Mason does nicely in the role. Where The Verdict falters relates to its storyline. Although the script came from no less a talent than David Mamet, the tale feels like warmed-over TV movie material. The film becomes rather melodramatic at times, and it goes too far out of its way to place obstacles in front of Frank; I thought those elements really stretched. Primary in that regard, I definitely disliked the romantic subplot between Frank and Laura. This felt pointless from moment one, and some twists that occur late in the film make it seem even more flawed. I felt these segments existed just to give the movie some stereotypical female appeal. The Frank/Laura relationship lacked depth and did nothing to move the story or improve it. Unlike the Eddie/Sarah affair in The Hustler, the film would have worked just as well - if not better - without the romance. Overall, I found The Verdict to offer a mixed bag. The film provided some excellent acting, and it seemed generally entertaining and compelling. However, the story seemed forced and artificial at times, and it failed to deliver much depth. Nonetheless, The Verdict has enough going for it to recommend a viewing.

The DVD Grades: Picture C+ / Audio B- / Bonus C The Verdict appears in an aspect ratio of approximately 1.85:1 on this single-sided, dual-layered DVD; the image has been enhanced for 16X9 televisions. Much of the time, the film presented a pretty solid picture, but some flaws made it less satisfying than it could have been. The main culprit stemmed from edge enhancement. That issue appeared very frequently throughout the film. The levels of EE never appeared horrific, but the issue seemed easily noticeable most of the time. Newman frequently wore a black coat, and that garment made the haloes easy to see. Despite the EE, sharpness usually appeared quite good. Most of the movie came across as nicely detailed and accurate. Occasionally, wide shots demonstrated moderate softness, but the film mainly looked distinct and well defined. I saw no issues related to jagged edges or moir effects. Print flaws presented moderate concerns. Some light grain showed up through the movie but didnt seem excessive. However, I did notice occasional examples of grit, nicks and blotches, and I saw more than a few instances of speckles. The image didnt look terribly dirty, but it definitely could have appeared cleaner. Although The Verdict featured a muted palette, the DVD replicated the films colors well. Despite the low-key tones, the hues appeared nicely rich and warm. I saw no concerns related to bleeding, noise, or other issues, as the colors came across as very solid. Black levels also seemed deep and dense, while shadow detail usually appeared appropriately clear without excessive opacity. Some of the interiors looked a little drab, but low-light situations generally came across as accurate. Ultimately, many parts of The Verdict appeared quite good, but between the edge enhancement and the print flaws, the image didnt merit a grade above a C+. The Dolby Surround 2.0 soundtrack of The Verdict seemed serviceable but unspectacular. Most of the soundfield remained fairly heavily oriented toward the front spectrum. Music offered a modest aspect of the track, but it showed decent stereo spread. Although the score failed to deliver strong delineation of instruments, it seemed to blend together well and created a good sense of presence. Effects played a fairly modest role in The Verdict. Within the forward realm, they presented a decent sense of ambience but didnt do much more than that. The surrounds kicked in sporadically. During the early parts of the film, the rear speakers added almost nothing, but later they occasionally provided information. The material seemed inconsistent; for example, some street scenes created general atmosphere, while others didnt. I felt the surround usage came across as a little artificial, but it appeared acceptable for its era. Audio quality appeared fine. Dialogue sounded a little thin given its age, but speech usually was fairly natural and warm, and I noticed no problems related to edginess or intelligibility. Music seemed a little muted, but that fit the low-key score, and those parts appeared reasonably distinct and full. Effects also played a minor role in the film. Other than the processed-sounding surround elements, those aspects came across as acceptably distinct and accurate. The Verdict offered a lackluster soundtrack, but it seemed good for a 20-year-old film. The DVD release of The Verdict includes a few supplements, starting with an audio commentary with director Sidney Lumet. The case indicates that Paul Newman also appears in the commentary. While technically correct, thats really a joke. We hear nothing from Newman until almost the end of the movie. We get literally about two minutes of fairly bland and generic material from the actor and that ends his participation. For Fox to state that The Verdict includes

a commentary from Newman borders on false advertising; you definitely shouldnt buy this DVD with the hope that youll learn anything from the actor. Not that youll get much from Lumet either, though he certainly contributes a great deal more information during his running, screen-specific track. On the positive side, Lumet gives us some basic background about the project and also briefly remarks upon the novel. More significantly, he discusses the methods used via set design, color palette, and other elements to convey a certain mood and tone. Those elements seem good, but unfortunately, you must sit through many empty spaces to get to them. Lumet goes silent for much of the commentary, and that becomes very frustrating. At times, Lumet contributes some useful material, but the sparse nature of his interaction makes it a below average piece as a whole. After the commentary, we find just a few minor components. The disc provides a featurette. This eight-minute and 40-second piece mainly promotes the film. It includes some shots from the set, film clips, and interview snippets with Lumet, author Barry Reed, producers Richard Zanuck and David Brown and actors Newman, Jack Warden, and James Mason. Though the piece offers some good behind the scenes images, overall it exists to promote the film. As such, it lacks much substance. We get a small Behind the Scenes Gallery as well. This includes a whopping eight photos taken on the set, and it doesnt do much for me. Lastly, the DVD provides trailers for a number of Newman flicks. We find ads for The Verdict, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Hombre and The Hustler. As a whole, I felt The Verdict presents a good but not great film. The story has promise, and the actors make it work, but the execution of the plot seems flat and melodramatic much of the time. Still, it works well enough to offer an enjoyable experience. The DVD provides watchable but flawed visuals along with adequate audio and a minor roster of extras led by an iffy audio commentary. Paul Newman fans will definitely want to see The Verdict, as he and the other actors do nicely in it, but otherwise, the movie seems passable at best.

THE VERDICT (1982). Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason. Incompetent alcoholic lawyer Paul Newman sues famous anesthesiologist Robert Towler for malpractice when a patient (Deborah Ann Kaye) goes into a coma during a C-section. The script was written by David Mamet and the film directed by Sidney Lumet *************** defense voir dire of plaintiff's expert ******** Defense: Good morning doctor. Dr. Thompson, just so the jury knows, you never treated Deborah Ann Kay, is that correct? A: Yes, that's correct. I was engaged to render an opinion. Q: Engaged to render an opinion, for a price. That is correct, you are being paid to be here? A: Just as you are sir.

Q: Are you board certified in Anesthesiology? A: No, I'm not. It's quite common in New York State to practice. . . Q: Yes, I'm quite sure it is, but this is Massachusetts. Are you board certified in Internal Medicine? A: No. Q: Neurology? A: No. Q: Orthopedics? A: No. I'm just an M.D. Q: Do you know Dr. Robert Towler? A: I know of him. Q: How is that? A: Through his book. Q: What book is that? A: Methodology and Practice in Anesthesiology. Q: How old are you doctor? A: I'm seventy-four (74) years old. Q: Do you still practice a lot of medicine? A: I'm on the staff of . . . . Q: Yes, yes, I've heard that, but you do testify quite a bit against other physicians. Isn't that correct? You are available for that so long as you're paid to be there? A: Sir, yes. So long as a thing is wrong, I am available. I am seventy-four (74) years old, I'm not board certified, I've been practicing medicine for forty-six (46) years and I know when an injustice has been done. Q: Do you indeed? I'll bet you do, that's fine, fine. Let's save the court some time, we'll accept Dr. Thompson as an expert witness.

Judge: Mr. Galvin, do you want to continue now or we could resume with Dr. Thompson this afternoon. Plaintiff: I'll continue now. ************** direct of plaintiff's expert *********** Q: Dr. Thompson, did you examine Deborah Ann Kay at the Northern Chronic Care Facility last night? A: I did. Defense: Objection. Judge: Sustained. Yes, the witness will confine his testimony to the hospital records. Q: Dr. Thompson, in your review of the hospital records, May 12, 1976, in your opinion, what happened to Deborah Ann Kay? A: Cardiac arrest. During delivery, her heart stopped. When the heart stops, the brain is deprived of oxygen. You get brain damage. That's why she is in the state she is in today. Q: Dr. Towler has testified that he restored the heart beat in three (3) to five (5) minutes. In your opinion, is that an accurate estimate? A: In my opinion it took much longer, nine (9) ten (10) minutes. There's too much brain damage. Judge: Are you saying that failure to restore a heart-beat within nine (9) or ten (10) minutes in itself constitutes bad medical practice? Plaintiff: Your honor! If I may, I'd like to be permitted to question my own witness in my own way. Judge: I'd just like to get to the point. MR. GALVIN, I BELIEVE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THE WITNESS A DIRECT QUESTION! Now let's not waste these people's time. Now answer the question Mr. Witness, please. Would a nine (9) minute lapse in restoring the heart beat in and of itself be negligence? A: In that small context I would have to say no? Judge: Then you would say no, there's no negligence based on my question. A: Given the limits of your question, that's correct. Judge: Then doctors were not negligent. Thank you.

Plaintiff: I'm not through questioning . . .your honor, with all due respect, if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it. **************** plaintiff's cross of defendant *************** Q: Dr. Towler, let's work backwards. Now you have a record of what happened in the operating room? A: Yes, that's correct. Q: I mean you made notations every seconds of the procedures . . . A: Yes. Q: Now these notes stopped four and a half (4) minutes after Deborah Ann Kay's heart stopped and it resumed three (3) minutes later. A: Well, we were rather busy, we were trying to restore her heart beat. Q: What happened in those three (3) minutes? A: Well we were trying to restore her heart beat? Q: Why did it take so long to restore her heart beat? Almost nine (9) minutes. Judge: Mr. Galvin, you are not allowing the witness to answer. A: Thank you your honor. Brain damage. It didn't necessarily take nine (9) or eight (8) minutes, it could have been caused in two (2). Q: Well now, wait a minute, you're saying that her brain damage could have been caused in two (2) minutes? Why is that? A: It's right there in her medical chart. She was anemic, less blood, less oxygen. The brain was getting less oxygen anyway. ----Q: Dr. Towler, Page 406, counter indicates of general anesthetics. Ideally a patient should refrain from taking nourishment up to nine (9) hours prior to induction of anesthetic. Does that sound familiar to you? A: Yes. I wrote it. Q: Methodology and practice in Anesthesiology, a general textbook on the subject is that correct?

A: Yes. Q: And you wrote it? A: Yes. Q: Page 414. If a patient has taken nourishment within one (1) hour prior to inducement, general anesthetic should be avoided at all cost because of the grave risk that the patient will aspirate food particles into her mask. Is that what happened to Deborah Ann Kay, she aspirated in her mask? A: She threw up in her mask, but she hadn't eaten one (1) hour before admission. Q: If she had eaten an hour before being admitted to the hospital, then the inducement of a general anesthetic of the kind you gave her would have been negligent? A: Negligent? Yes, it would have been criminal but such was not the case. Q: Thank you. ********** direct of Kaitlin Costello Price, nurse *********** Q: You were the admitting nurse at St. Katherine Labrey, May 12, 1976, the night that they admitted Deborah Ann Kay. A: Yes. Q: Did you sign this admission form? A: Yes. Q: Those are your initials, KC? A: Katelyn Costello. That's my maiden name. Q: Did you ask the patient, when did she last eat? A: Yes. Q: What did she say? A: She had said she had had a full meal one (1) hour before coming to the hospital. Q: One (1) hour? A: Yes.

Q: And did you put the numeral one (1) on the admission slip, I mean standing for one (1) hour? A: Yes, I did. Q: A single hour? A: Yes. Q: Thank you. Your witness. **************** cross ************** Q: You are aware of the penalties for perjury? A: It's a crime. . . Q: A serious crime. A: I wouldn't do it. Q: You would not? A: No. Q: In fact you've just taken an oath haven't you? You've just sworn to that isn't that right? A: Yes. Q: Just now? A: Yes. Q: You have sworn before God that you would tell the truth? A: Yes. Q: Now, I want to ask you something. Four (4) years ago, when you were working as a nurse, are you aware that these doctors, Marks and Towler, based their treatment of Deborah Ann Kay on this admitting form which you signed? A: I. . . Q: Wasn't that an oath, these are your initials, KC? When you signed this form, you took an oath, no less important than which you have taken today, isn't that right? Isn't that right?

A: Yes. Q: Then which is correct? You have sworn today that the patient ate one (1) hour before admittance, four (4) years ago, you swore that she ate nine (9) hours before admittance. Alright, which is the lie? A: I. . . Q: You know that these men could have settled out of court, they wanted a trial, they wanted to clear their names. And you would come here and on a slip of memory, you'd ruin their lives. A: They lied. Q: They lied? When did they lie? Do you know what a lie is? A: I do yes. Q: You swore on a form that the patient ate nine (9) hours. . . A: That's not what I wrote. Q: You just told me that you signed it? A: Yes, I signed it, yes. But I didn't write a nine (9), I wrote a one (1). Q: You didn't write a nine (9), you wrote a one (1), and how is it that you remember so clearly after four (4) years? A: Because I kept a copy, I have it right here. Defense: Objection. We can't be expected to accept a photocopy when the court already has the original. Judge: I'll rule on that presently. Please proceed. Q: What in the world induced you to make a photocopy and hold it for four (4) years. Your honor, this . . .Why, Why, Why would you do that? A: I thought I might need it. Q: And why would you think that? A: After the operation, when that poor girl, she went into a coma, Dr. Towler called me in. He told me that he had had five (5) difficult deliveries in a row and he was tired and he never looked at the admittance form and he told me to change the form, he told me to

change the one (1) to a nine (9) or else, or else, he said he would fire me, he said I would never work again. Who were these men? Who were these men? I wanted to be a nurse. Q: No further questions your honor. Judge: You may step down. Mr. Galvin? Plaintiff: Nothing further your honor. Judge: Mr. Kincannon? Mr. Kincannon? Defense: Ah, yes, thank you your honor, we object to the copy of the admitting form and we cite McGee vs. the State of Indiana, U.S. 131.2. The admission of a admission of a duplicate document in preference to an existing original must presuppose the possibility of alteration and so must be disallowed. And your honor, haven given the Plaintiff the leeway, we would like your ruling now. We object to the admission of a zerox photocopy. Judge: One moment, Mr. Kincannon. Yes, the document is disallowed. Plaintiff: Objection. Judge: Overruled. Plaintiff: Exception. Judge: Noted. Thank you. The jury will be advised not to consider the testimony of Ms. Costello regarding the zerox form. It is unsubstantiated. We cannot accept a copy in preference to the original. Defense: Thank you your honor. Furthermore, Ms. Costello is a rebuttal witness. As the court no prior notice of Ms. Costello's appearance and as a surprise witness, she may serve only to rebut direct testimony. As her only evidentiary rebuttal is the admitting form which has been disallowed, I request that her entire testimony be disallowed and that the jury be advised that they must totally disregard her entire appearance here. Judge: Yes, I'm going to uphold that. Plaintiff: Objection. Judge: Overruled. Plaintiff: Exception. Judge: Noted, thank you.