MovieChat Forums > The Verdict (1982) Discussion > Rebuttal witness testimony thrown out?

Rebuttal witness testimony thrown out?

posted 8 years ago by bhoffer66
5 replies | jump to latest

Something didn't seem right about the young nurse's (Kaitlin Costello) story being totally disavowed by the judge and stricken from the record. Yes, she was a rebuttal witness to the information on the original hospital admittance form. And the xerox copy was correctly invalidated by case law. But what about her story, given under oath? It seems like the xerox copy was not even necessary. What if she never made a copy? Seems like there is no way that her testimony could be thrown out in that case. Maybe that's the conclusion the jury came to, as well. The defense scored technical legal points, but lost the game. Just find it hard to believe that her sworn testimony (form or no form) could have been totally thrown out.

[–] Stevicus-2 8 years ago

I think that may be one of the main points of the film, demonstrating how lawyers can use all kinds of legal trickery to stack the deck and deny justice to those whom it is due. I think that's what Galvin was thinking when he told the jury "you are the law," essentially telling them to ignore the BS show cooked up by Concannon and the judge.

[–] jevicci (156) 4 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree. Why should her testimony be completely disregarded? They mentioned something about her being a surprise witness. Maybe the defense were required to be informed in advance or something? I'd really like an explanation of all of this. Another thing that confused me was that the jury was explicitly instructed to not take the nurse's testimony into account. However, based on their verdict, they clearly did. Does that mean they were in violation of proper court proceedings or something? This was all very confusing.

[–] Rolltide (964) 3 years ago

I guarantee you that after the trial the press would have talked to her making her story available for everybody.

Her copy of the admittance form would have been in the Boston Globe for all to see. A major PR problem for the hospital, those doctors and the Archdiocese.

That judge might have been under some scrutiny as well and what if it had been made public that Concannon hired a spy to seduce Galvin? Major ethics violations all around.

[–] redban (5272) 3 years ago

It’s been a few years since I saw the film. But the defense lawyer gave some skillful argument that got the nurse’s testimony thrown out. I don’t remember what the argument was, but there was some technical, legal basis for throwing out the nurse’s testimony.

The goal was to show, further, that Newman’s character was outmatched by the gifted defense attorney, who was able to get the nurse’s testimony stricken.

At the end, the jury ignored the judge’s order to disregard the nurse, showing that truth > legal skills

[–] ebhaynz (3550) 3 years ago

Yes, you're right this is a great scene when the nurse admits she made a copy of the original and Concannon is so shell shocked he stammers and embarrassingly asks her "why would you make a copy of such an obscure document?" Then he looks at the judge who for once isn't there to help him, judge Hoyle actually gives him the death stare!
Then, Concannon then goes back to his table of lawyers who are furiously trying to find a precedent in this type of situation. Once they find a precedent where the copy cannot be used against an original the judge rules in his favor but the damage was already done. After the closing statements the jury goes to their chambers to decide the verdict. One of the diocese lawyers accurately tells the Bishop "Concannon was brilliant" but the noble Bishop asks "but did you believe the nurse", we get a very uncomfortable silence.