MovieChat Forums > The Verdict (1982) Discussion > Judge Hoyle changed after Kaitlin Price'...

Judge Hoyle changed after Kaitlin Price's testimony


I have always wondered why it seemed that Judge Hoyle changed his attitude about the case after Kaitlin Price's testimony. Specifically when Concannon objected to the copy of the admittance form. As Concannon looked toward the judge expecting a ruling and Judge Hoyle sits silently and just stares almost in contempt of the defense. Did the judge just allow the testimony to continue so that it would be heard knowing he would later rule it as inadmissable ( to cover himself)expecting the jury to rule as they did? The old phrase that you cannot un ring a bell seems to have happenned. Any one else see it as I did?

reply

I don't think he changed his attitude, which was "no sympathy" for Frank, but the rebuttal witness gave surprise testimony, and the Judge later said it was his mistake to let it be heard. Yes, you're correct that you can't disregard something you've heard.
One interesting aspect is that when the judge says the jury should disregard it, Towler thinks it's a victory, but Concannon moves away from him. Did he do this because he knew the case was lost, or out of contempt for Towler, or both?

Play the game existence 'til the end...of the beginning...

reply

Great point zen. I'll have to rewatch that part. What I loved is unlike other films where the reading of the verdict is drawn out, the verdict was delivered somewhat abruptly.

reply

I have always taken it to be due to his contempt for what the doctor did. Concannon was paid, and paid very well, to put up a good defense for his clients. That doesn't mean that he has any respect for them and you'll see attorneys in other films behave this way too.

reply

My question is: In 1982 in Massachusetts, were you allowed to bring in surprise witnesses? Especially those who testify on a scientific or medical basis?
Why the heck did opposing council allow themselves to be blindsided like that? Didnt they notice she was missing to begin with?

Also, if one of your witnesses accused another of LYING and had PROOF, would they just let her walk out of the courtroom WITH the damn papers in her purse?
What the hell?

reply

I think the judge knew EXACTLY what he was doing by alowing nurse Costello's testimony to be heard, and thus I agree with the first theory offered in this thread. Sure, he later SAID it was a mistake, but the scene with him glaring at Concannon (sp?) when he tried to get him to stop her from saying anything further was put there for a reason. As if to say "I've helped you to THIS point, but NO further." And sure, later he covered his judicial *ss by ruling to dismiss the evidence and instrucing the jury as he did.

reply

But if the judge rules to dismiss the evidence, how can he allow the jury to hold for the plaintiff? It doesn't make sense to me because Galvin had nothing but the Costello testimony. Clearly, the jury rendered their verdict based on evidence they were supposed to dismiss. So is this legally possible?

reply

A jury doesn't have to explain their verdict to anyone, so yes, it is legally possible. They're the only ones with the responsibility to render a verdict, and nobody is allowed to question or second-guess them.

reply

Actually, a judge is able to put aside a jury and render a verdict of 'not guilty' in a civil trial if he feels a guilty verdict is warranted based on the facts presented. I am not a lawyer so i can't explain whether or how it would apply to this case. The verdict was definitely NOT supported by the testimony allowed into evidence.

reply

Look up JNOV (judgment non obstante veredicto). That's what you are referring to.

The judge can throw out a jury decision is very extreme cases which possibly could have happened here if he reasonably came to the conclusion that the jury based their verdict on thrown out testimony.



Conquer your fear, and I promise you, you will conquer death.

reply

I saw this on AMC today and I think there is a bit of a technicality going on, although it's not acknowledged in the film or by the judge. Kaitlin's testimony about the difference between the original admission form and the photocopy is ruled inadmissable by the judge, because it's merely a copy and it's possible a copy can be altered. It's the focus of all the back-and-forth about inadmissability, etc. But she has also testified that Dr. Towler came to her afterwards and asked her to alter the original admission form to cover his butt. This is the reason she made the copy in the first place. These are two separate issues and I would imagine the judge knows this, and that high-priced team of defence lawyers should have seen it as well.

reply

I thought that too. Sure the judge should throw out the photocopy, as the original must be said to be superior. But come on. The judge acted like her whole testimony about putting a ONE on the form, and Dr. Towler calling her into his office and ordering her to falsify the admittance form, THAT is admissible. She was there. She was a witness. The jury is free to believe or disbelieve her testimony, but that is it. Just because he's throwing out the piece of paper doesn't make her testimony about her actions and what Towler TOLD her inadmissible.

I always thought this was just artificial drama added in, that made no legal sense. The judge should have ordered the jury to forget the photocopy ever existed, and that's it.

reply

paul-2219 said, "The judge acted like her whole testimony about putting a ONE on the form, and Dr. Towler calling her into his office and ordering her to falsify the admittance form, THAT is admissible. She was there. She was a witness. The jury is free to believe or disbelieve her testimony, but that is it. Just because he's throwing out the piece of paper doesn't make her testimony about her actions and what Towler TOLD her inadmissible."

You forget that the judge instructed the jury to ignore her entire testimony and to have it stricken from the transcript. So Kaitlin Costello's allegation that Dr Towler asked her to alter the admittance form was also stricken.

reply

You forget that the judge instructed the jury to ignore her entire testimony and to have it stricken from the transcript. So Kaitlin Costello's allegation that Dr Towler asked her to alter the admittance form was also stricken.

No I didn't forget. My point was that the judge made an error (that could be the basis for an appeal) in instructing the jury to throw out her entire testimony about her conversation with Towler. He threw out her copy of the form, and so it makes sense that he should instruct the jury to also toss out any of her mention of making that copy, but her conversation is a different matter. The jury should have been instructed that there is no direct proof of that document, and so should strike it from their memory.

But her conversation is an entirely different matter. She was there. She should be able to tell the jury what she heard, and leave it up to them to believe her or not (which they ended up doing anyway).

It's like if you told me to murder your wife, and gave me a written description of when and where, and I made a copy of that piece of paper, well the judge should be able to toss that xerox and my testimony about ANY piece of paper I was given by you, but not our conversation.

That's the way I see it anyway. I mean, what if a lot of OTHER things were said in that conversation? That he killed Jimmy Hoffa? Is everything they talked about to be tossed out because the xerox was inadmissible?

I think that ruling would have been overturned in appeal.

reply

"But her conversation is an entirely different matter. She was there. She should be able to tell the jury what she heard, and leave it up to them to believe her or not (which they ended up doing anyway). "

Yes, SHOULD be able to tell the jury. And did, but the judge ordered it stricken.

reply

What you're saying (i.e. the judge should have thrown out the copied document, not the whole document) is valid, but remember that the basis of the judge's decision is that Costello was brought as a "rebuttal witness," not a regular witness. The rules for her testimony applied differently.

The decision to disregard her testimony was grounded in a legal technicality, which was the point. When the jury gave a verdict based on her testimony despite the judge's orders, it amounted to pure justice over wily legalisms.

reply

Yes she was called as a rebuttal witness, but (as I understand it), that simply means that she could not introduce any new evidence, only rebut something the defence is claiming. Well her writing down that number on the admission form WAS the defence's claim, and so her conversation with Towler about it should be directly pertinent and admissible, even if the copy she made was not.

As I recall, they were intimating that the original admission for would have been admissible as part of her surprise rebuttal testimony, just not the Xerox. That tells me that the admission form number was NOT outside the realm of what she was allowed to introduce as a rebuttal witness, and that therefore he CONVERSATION with Towler about it should be permitted.

I know the idea is this was a hostile judge, and a judgement call, but IMO a good Lawyer would have at least protested to the judge that her conversation should be admissible.

reply

but (as I understand it)

And there is the problem. Unless you're a judge, law professor, or seasoned attorney (in civil law), then you're not going to know for sure if, in real life, "a good lawyer would have ... protested to the judge that her conversation should be admissible."

The movie, however, clearly told us that her testimony was not admissible. Even Newman's teacher told him after the judge's decision, "Legally, he's right."

In the movie, the decision to knock Costello's testimony off the trial was sound. Of course, the jury ignored the law to do what was right, which was the crux of this movie.

Again, I would say forget trying to guess what real-life lawyers would have done or should have done; the directors, producers, and writers of "The Verdict" didn't intend for audiences to make such inquiries. Just take the legal procedures of this movie as they are given.

reply

I know the MOVIE told us that, I was just arguing that such a ruling was unlikely and a lazy plot device. A photocopy ruled inadmissible seems very unlikely IMO to extend to a conversation two people had, that directly pertains to the testimony the witness was called to specifically rebut.

And I might be remembering wrong, but didn't his teacher admit that throwing out the xerox was legally right, and her testimony about that COPY? I didn't hear anyone discuss the admissibility of their conversation, or indeed what she says she DID.

As an example, let's say she never made a copy, she would presumably still be able to tell her story about being told to alter the admission form, right? So then why should the existence or non-existence of a piece of paper affect THAT right?

But you're right. I might simply be wrong about American law here. I just would have liked to see Newman's character bring up my objection. Seemed the obvious one to make.



reply

And I might be remembering wrong, but didn't his teacher admit that throwing out the xerox was legally right, and her testimony about that COPY? I didn't hear anyone discuss the admissibility of their conversation, or indeed what she says she DID.


Newman's teacher said, "Legally, he's right" after the defense attorney made his case and the judge agreed. "Legally, he's right" means the judge was right to knock off Costello's testimony; it was soundly grounded in the law.

But you're right. I might simply be wrong about American law here. I just would have liked to see Newman's character bring up my objection. Seemed the obvious one to make.


Newman's character did shout "objection" (more than once), but the judge overruled (and Newman responded "Exception"). When the judge overrules your objection, you can't do much more.

As an example, let's say she never made a copy, she would presumably still be able to tell her story about being told to alter the admission form, right? So then why should the existence or non-existence of a piece of paper affect THAT right?


As a rebuttal witness, she couldn't do so in the movie. In real life, I don't know. Perhaps you can thoroughly research the rules concerning rebuttal witnesses to understand. If you must do so, then I don't think it was a "lazy plot device" in this movie.

For real-life laws, this link here says:

http://federalevidence.com/blog/2008/august/%E2%80%9Crebuttal%E2%80%9D-witness-cannot-be-used-clarify-evidence-offered-case-chief

“Rebuttal” Witness Cannot Be Used To Clarify Evidence Offered In Case In Chief

Seventh Circuit reiterates that rebuttal evidence must “contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party.”

Now, Costello's testimony was truly meant to rebut (i.e. contradict, impeach, or defuse) the doctor's claim that the woman ate 9 hours ago, not 1. Costello says 1 hour for two reasons: Memory (the woman told her 1 hour) and the copied document.

But, as the questionings made clear, Costello's memory alone was unreliable because the incident happened four years ago. The foundation of Costello's claim was, therefore, the written document, which she made as a copy.

But, the movie made clear that this written document was inadmissible, meaning the original document alone must hold sway in the court! And that original document, with Costello's signature, said that the woman ate 9 hours, not one.

Again:

1). Costello's memory alone was determined unreliable by the questionings.
2). The copied document was inadmissible under established law.
3). The original document signed under oath by Costello said the woman ate 9 hours, not one.

With those facts, there was no valid case for the admittance of Costello's testimony.

If she were a regular witness, instead of a rebuttal witness, then maybe her testimony would have been admissible. But even here, there would be problems because her story contradicts the original document signed under oath by herself, which says the woman ate for 9 hours, not 1.

reply

As I've said, I disagree with -
1). Costello's memory alone was determined unreliable by the questionings.
Nobody found that her memory was too old to be reliable, or at least unreliable enough to be ruled inadmissible. After all, the other doctors' memory-based testimony was certainly allowed, so why not hers?

If she were a regular witness, instead of a rebuttal witness, then maybe her testimony would have been admissible.
I don't see how her being a rebuttal witness makes any difference here. She was - after all - only trying to contradict the official numeral on the admission form. She wasn't arguing any other new points.

reply

But, as the questionings made clear, Costello's memory alone was unreliable because the incident happened four years ago.
I disagree with this point. The woman was unfairly chased out of her chosen and desired field as a result of the events which unfolded. You honestly believe that she would not remember these details only four years later?

reply

Because a jury can do whatever it wants. It deliberates in private, and is not required to explain the verdict. This is why jury trials can be dangerous, you never know for certain what will come out.

reply

Another important point to remember is this was a CIVIL trial, not a CRIMINAL trial.
Jury nullification (where a judge overrules a jury based on what is blatantly obvious mistakes) is treated differently with civil matters, if at all. In other words, in civil court once a case gets to a jury there is little anyone can do to overrule the verdict except appeal.

reply

Jury nullification (where a judge overrules a jury based on what is blatantly obvious mistakes) is treated differently with civil matters, if at all.
You are using an incorrect definition of jury nullification. The correct definition is when a jury returns a not guilty verdict which is at odds with the evidence and/or the law. You are thinking about a judge setting aside a guilty verdict. In the case of a criminal trial, the judge can set aside a conviction which is not supported, but never an acquittal.

reply

As OP says "You can't un ring the bell." Up to the point of Kaitlyn's testimony, the judge had been able to plausibly pretend to be impartial. When the jury heard her, the judge knew the jig was up. If he wanted to avoid unfavorable newspaper coverage and jeopardize his re-election, he had to move the fairness line a bit. Too bad for the diocese but you've got to look out for number 1.

reply

Btw, Judges in Massachusetts are appointed by the Governor, and its a permanent appointment. They are not elected by the people.

reply

I believe you are exactly right. And I think the judge did change his mind slightly. He was never a bad guy; I think he genuinely believed this was a nuisance suit of questionable merit, and maybe he was a little too cosy with the hospital's lawyers. But he was thoroughly disgusted with Newman's' character - and who could blame him? He saw him as a shady, washed up lawyer, who shows up late and is unprepared, wasting the court's time with another ambulance-chaser style suit. When the nurse's testimony is heard he finally realizes that there really could be some serious malpractice going on, but his hands were tied, and had to continue with the legal dismissal.

reply

This was covered.

Concannon states, “ ... as a surprise witness, she is only able to rebut direct testimony.”

reply

I didn't think he changed his attitude at all but rather tried to walk a line between aiding the defense and being so blatantly obvious under later transcript scrutiny. I think most judges, particularly this one, are so arrogant they think a wave of their godlike hand and direction to disregard would be enough for a jury to unhear that testimony.

〰〰〰〰〰〰
http://bit.ly/1BXT2z8

reply

As I understand, the rules of court proceedings now are designed to eliminate surprise witnesses and surprise documents. Neither the defense nor prosecution- nor the judge- likes to be sandbagged.

Even when Perry Mason brings in a surprise- which he does a lot- the Judge asks the prosecution (usually Burger) if he will allow it. And he usually does.

But in this case Galvin had to know he was on shaky legal grounds. The witness was allowed to testify because her name was on the pivotal legal document an so she was already an integral part of the case. Galvin coached her not to spring the surprise until the last possible moment. The Jury would hear it, and not forget it. Legally, I think she could only testify as to the original document that she signed, and not a photocopy which, indeed, could have been altered.

To get that introduced as evidence, the judge would have to allow it, or, if he didn't, Galvin could appeal if the decision went against him to a higher court.

All documents submitted for trial have to be reviewed by both sides. Even if one is fraudulent, the point is that the opposition has a chance to examine it closely so to challenge it in court if need be.

But I ramble...

reply

Even when Perry Mason brings in a surprise- which he does a lot- the Judge asks the prosecution (usually Burger) if he will allow it. And he usually does.
One thing I always liked about the Perry Mason show was that Hamilton Burger, even though he was kind of a jerk most of the time, was truly interested in justice being done. So when it turned out he was wrong (in every episode), he never stood in the way of the truth coming out like most TV prosecutors do--at least the ones who are on shows where "our side" is the defense.

reply

I think the judge's attitude change reflected fear. "Oh, crap. I've been bullying the prosecution and sucking up to the Church/power players and now it's being revealed that I'm a corrupt man who supports criminals. I am SCREWED! How can I minimize the damage to myself?"

Wouldn't the fact that the discrepancy between the original and the copy was due to criminal conduct be a justification for further inquiry?

reply

I think he realized he had been played.
No judge likes that, ever.

reply