03.08.2013 Views

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

the jury may be out of the room for more than half of the trial.<br />

2. Invoking the “Rule”<br />

The procedure known as “invoking the rule”— a rule of civil procedure that allows a<br />

party to request that a witness be prevented from hearing the testimony of other<br />

witnesses in the trial—can be distressing to witnesses. The intent is to prevent<br />

witnesses from refreshing their memory or shaping their testimony to fit other<br />

testimony. The rule is particularly frustrating to health care practitioners acting as<br />

expert witnesses. They will be asked to testify about the validity of other testimony<br />

that they are prevented from hearing. Since the attorneys are free to paraphrase the<br />

words of other witnesses, perhaps putting a different cast on them, the expert may be<br />

in the position of condemning another physician for something the physician did not<br />

say or do.<br />

3. Cross-Examination<br />

Cross-examination is the process of elucidating the truth through the examination of<br />

the contested information by adversary attorneys. The best example of cross-<br />

examination is the examination of witnesses. Each attorney questions the witness in<br />

turn, <strong>and</strong> each is allowed to requestion the witness on matters brought out by<br />

subsequent questioners. This may take a few minutes or several weeks, depending on<br />

the complexity of the testimony. In theory, this relentless questioning eventually<br />

flushes out the truth. This theory, however, is predicated on the assumption that the<br />

adversaries are sufficiently well versed in the technicalities of the witness’s<br />

testimony to recognize the truth when it makes an appearance. In practice, cross-<br />

examination of witnesses frequently illuminates little more than the relative acting<br />

skills of the examining attorneys <strong>and</strong> the witness.<br />

4. The Hearsay Rule<br />

Few other concepts in law arise so often <strong>and</strong> yet are so inadequately understood as<br />

the concept of hearsay. The hearsay rule is important in the medical setting because<br />

the admissibility of the medical record into the court as evidence is governed by the<br />

hearsay rule. A basic underst<strong>and</strong>ing of this rule is necessary to an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of<br />

the legal significance of medical recordkeeping protocols. The hearsay rule holds<br />

that one person cannot testify about the truth of what another person said. Witnesses<br />

can testify only as to what they heard the person in question say. For example, a<br />

nurse may testify that she heard Dr. Jones say, “I must have been drunk to have<br />

nicked that patient’s intestine!” The jury could accept this as evidence of what Dr.<br />

Jones said but not as evidence that she was drunk or had nicked the intestine. These<br />

facts would need to be proved through the testimony of Dr. Jones herself or the<br />

testimony of appropriate expert witnesses.<br />

The hearsay rule arises from the need for counsel to cross-examine every witness <strong>and</strong><br />

document to determine its truthfulness. If a statement made out of court is<br />

154

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!