Medical Testimony Can Be the Key in Criminal Defense Cases*
What may seem like an open and shut case on the surface can have
surprising results, especially once all of the facts are presented.
Take for instance a recent case in which the defendant was charged with vehicular homicide after he and a co-worker were involved in a car accident resulting in the co-worker's death.
Both
the defendant, who was driving the work truck, and the co-worker, who
was sitting in the passenger seat, had been drinking prior to the
accident. The defendant lost control of the vehicle and hit a tree. On
the surface, someone might assume that the passenger's death occurred
because the driver had been drinking and caused the accident - or in
legal parlance, but for the defendant operating a motor vehicle after
consuming alcohol, the accident would not have happened and the victim
would still be alive.
However, this would be a premature
conclusion. What actually happened in this case is that the victim's
death was attributable to his own negligence because his death was
caused by crush injuries sustained after the cargo that he improperly
secured shifted during the accident. But the criminal defense attorney
in this case had to jump through several legal hoops to get evidence of
the victim's negligence admitted at trial.
New York's Dead Man's Statute and Expert Witness Evidentiary Rules
Proving
that the cause of the victim's death was attributable to his failure to
correctly secure the cargo rather than the driver's intoxication could
have presented a special problem under New York's rules of evidence.
The
only two people in the car, and quite possibly the only two witnesses
to the victim improperly securing the cargo, were the defendant and the
victim. Under New York's "Dead Man's Statute" (CPLR §4519), personal
transactions or communications with a person who has since died or
become incapacitated (for example, in a coma or otherwise unable to
communicate) cannot be used at trial by an interested party.
In this case, that would preclude the defendant (the driver of the truck) from testifying in court to anything the victim
said
while loading the truck or before the accident that might help prove
the driver was not liable for the victim's death. In order for such
testimony to be admissible at trial, a third party, or disinterested
party, would have had to witness the conversation in order to testify
about it before the court.
However, under an important exception
to the Dead Man's Statute, the driver may have been able to testify to
the deceased victim's
actions. The exception permits otherwise
interested witnesses, in this case the defendant driver, to testify to
the facts of an accident resulting from the negligent operation of a
motor vehicle. So in this case, the driver may have been able to testify
that he witnessed the passenger load the cargo. But just witnessing the
victim loading the cargo would not necessarily exculpate the defendant.
So how to prove the driver was not at-fault for the victim's death?
In this particular case, medical expert witness testimony was the best defense to prove the driver was not guilty of vehicular homicide. During the trial, a medical expert witness
testified that the fatal injury causing the victim's death was not
caused by frontal trauma to the head from the impact with the tree.
Instead, the fatal injury was caused by blunt force trauma to the back
of the head, consistent with the impact of the shifting cargo load.
Under
New York's Rules of Evidence, the medical expert was unable to directly
testify that the victim's cause of death was not the result of the
driver's intoxication. Evidentiary rules prevent expert witnesses from
basing their opinions on speculation and conjecture - their testimony
only can be based on fact.
Generally, the rules of evidence also
prohibit witnesses from stating an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact -
or, in other words, from giving an opinion on an issue the jury is
responsible for deciding. In this case, that would be whether the
victim's death was attributable to vehicular homicide committed by the
defendant.
Again, this would prevent the medical expert from
testifying affirmatively that the defendant was not responsible for the
victim's death. Instead, the medical expert testified as to his opinion
of the victim's cause of death based on medical evidence, which showed
his death was caused by the crush injuries from the truck's shifting
cargo.
Conclusion
Expert testimony,
particularly medical expert testimony, often is a vital component in
criminal defense cases. The rules of evidence place many restrictions on
what a witness may or may not testify to, which can complicate cases
and make it that much harder to present evidence to the jury.
An
attorney experienced in handling criminal defense cases understands when
expert testimony should be used and how it may help your case. For more
information on defending against criminal charges, contact J John Sebastian today.
http://www.gslawyers.com/Articles/Medical-Testimony-Can-Be-the-Key-in-Criminal-Defense-Cases.shtml
http://buffalocriminalattorney.iconosites.com/
http://jjohnsebastianattorney.com/
