anybody ever hear, 'for want of a shoe a horse was lost?' who's going on vacation tomorrow?
friedman. st. barts. is that right?
send mrs. friedman a dozen roses tomorrow morning please, sal. i tell you what, send her a sunlamp. i'm sorry, but you'll have to stay. no vacations till this thing is cleared.
our court date is january twelfth. you're all acquainted with this case. it's been scheduled for eighteen months. we have the attorney for the plaintiff, frank galvin -- and i trust you are all familiar with his record -- and we have been expecting him to call us to negotiate. as he did not, and five days before we're supposed to go to court we made him a rather generous offer, which he refused. five days before the trial. what does this mean? i want to find out. research") homework") acquaint yourselves again with the depositions. don't rely on the fact that we did it last year. do it again. we're going to review them here, and you do it at home. you each have a full file. know the deps, and i want you all to be here when we work with the defendants.  when is that, billy?
i want an article in the globe as soon as possible, 'st. cat's.  neighborhood giant serving the community' etc. we've got it in the files. i want something in monday's herald: 'our gallant doctors,' something.  be inventive, i want television.  . talk to our man at gbh. and to belabor the obvious for a moment.  our clients are: the archdiocese of boston; st. catherine laboure hospital, and drs. marx and towler, two of the most respected men in their profession. the thrust of this defense will be to answer in court, in the press and in the public mind -- to answer the accusation of negligence this completely: not only that we win the case, but that we win the case so that it's seen that the attack on these men and this institution was a rank obscenity. all right. let's get the cobwebs off. billy?
ed concannon.
your honor, bishop brophy and the archdiocese have offered plaintiff two hundred and ten thousand dollars.
my doctors didn't want a settlement at any price. they wanted this cleared up in court. they want their vindication. i agree with them. but for today the offer stands. before we begin the publicity of a trial. for today only. when i walk out that door the offer is withdrawn. as long as you understand that. it's got to be that way.
what is your name, please?
you were deborah ann kaye's doctor?
don't equivocate. be positive. just tell the truth.
whatever the 'truth' is, let's hear that. you were her doctor.
say it.
you were the anesthesiologist at her delivery may twelfth, nineteen seventy.
answer affirmatively. simply. keep those answers to three words. you weren't 'part of a group,' you were her anesthesiologist. isn't that right?
you were there to help dr. marx deliver her baby. were you not?
anything special about the case?
when 'debby'.  thank you.
dr. towler, who was in the operating room with you?
what did these people do when her heart stopped?
'code blue,' what does that mean?
why wasn't she getting oxygen?
tell me one?
she threw up in her mask. let's cut the bullshit. say it: she threw up
and her heart stopped and she wasn't getting oxygen.
and what did your team do.
you brought thirty years of medical experience to bear. isn't that what you did?
a patient riddled with complications, questionable information on her, on her admitting form.
to save her and to save the baby. is that.
you reached down into death. now, isn't that right?
tell us.
i'm going to tell you how you handle the fact that he's black. you don't touch it. you don't mention it. you treat him like anybody else. neither better or worse. and you get a black lawyer to sit at our table. okay?
good. what else do you do?
do it. we'll be at locke-obers.
ready for the defense, your honor.
dr. thompson, just so the jury knows, you never treated deborah ann kaye. is that correct?
engaged to render an opinion. for a price. is that correct? you're being paid to be here today?
are you board-certified in anesthesiology, doctor?
i'm sure it is, but this is massachusetts, doctor. certified in internal medicine?
neurology?
orthopedics?
do you know dr. robert towler?
how is that?
what book is that?
of anesthesiology?
how old are you?
uh-huh. still practice a lot of medicine?
yes, we've heard that. doctor: you testify quite a bit against other physicians? isn't that right? you, you're available for that? when you're paid to be there?
do you, indeed. i'll bet you do. fine. fine. we'll save the court the time. we will admit the doctor as an 'expert witness,' fine.
objection.
no further questions.
objection, we've.
we've touched on this, his own witness has said.
your honor! your honor.
i know how you feel. i know you don't believe me, but i do. i'm going to tell you something i learned when i was your age. i had prepared a case. mr. white asked me, 'how did you do.' i said, 'i've done my best.' he said, 'they don't pay you to do your best. they pay you to win.' that's what pays for this office. and that's what pays for the pro bono work that we do for the poor. and for the kind of law that you want to practice. and that's what pays for your clothes and my whiskey, and the leisure that we have to sit back and discuss philosophy. as we're doing tonight. we're paid to win the case.
you finished your marriage. you wanted to come back and practice law. you wanted to come back to the world.
welcome back.
nothing further, your honor.
you are aware of the penalties for perjury?
yes. it is a crime. a serious crime.
you would not?
in fact, you've just taken an oath that you would not commit perjury. you've just sworn to that. isn't that right?
just now.
sworn before god you would tell the truth?
now. i'd like to ask you something: four years ago, when you were working as a nurse, are you aware that drs. towler and marx based their treatment of deborah ann kaye on this chart that you signed?
and wasn't that an oath? these are your initials here: k.c. when you signed this chart you took an oath. no less important than that which you took today. isn't that right? isn't that right?
then, please, which is correct? you've sworn today the patient ate one hour ago. four years ago you swore she ate nine hours ago? which is the lie. when were you lying?
you know these doctors 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 four years ago, you'd ruin their lives.
'they lied.' indeed! when did they lie? and do you know what a lie is?
you swore on this form that the patient ate nine hours ago.
you've just said you signed it.
you didn't write that figure. and how is it that you remember that so clearly after four years?
objection! this is ri.  expect us to accept a photocopy, we have the original right.
what in the world would induce you to make a photocopy of some obscure record and hold it four years? this is a.  why? why would you do that?
and why, please tell us, would you think that?
no further questions.
thank you, your honor. we object to the copy of the admissions form as incompetent and essentially hearsay evidence and cite mcgee versus state of indiana, u.s. 131 point 2 and 216 through 25 of the uniform code: 'the 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, having given the plaintiff the leeway we would like your ruling on this issue now: we object to the admission of the xerox form.
thank you, your honor. further: ms. costello is a rebuttal witness. as a 'surprise witness' she may only serve to rebut direct testimony. as her only evidentiary rebuttal was the admitting form, which has been disallowed i request that her entire testimony be disallowed and the jury advised that they must totally disregard her appearance here.