Moral of the story: In a court, never say things that you think are probably true, only say that things that you know for a fact are true whenever you're a witness
That is simple the guilty party, one who causes harm to another with knowledge and intent to do so. In this short minute it is the attorney who is trying to set up the Dr. to say what he wants him to say to use against someone or him... probably to "depose" the Doctor so he can discredit his testimony and thus the voracity, reliability and relevance of his testimony.
that's not a great thing to do as a witness, generally doing that on purpose leads the jury to believe they are hiding something and not just avoiding questions. the lawyer did a great job of keeping his cool and not badgering him. I'd take the lawyer any day
Jenell McGrew doesn’t matter, can’t convict someone on hearsay. You can think they’re guilty all day long with them answering around a question, but it boils down to irrefutable evidence.
@@atm9566 it actually is not, I’m in sports medicine. It’s hard to say your treatment was better or worse then another specialist, simply because it would be impossible to cross examine one variable in a multi variable equation. It’s simple logistics
Poor little attorney didn't like it when he got a taste of his own medicine. More witnesses should give attorneys a hard time. make the fuckers sweat. having done that, find out where they live and start a process of Chinese water torture and persecute the little runts. You're a fucking toady.
@no way That's not really appropriate in this case. The witness responded to court instructions when asked to do so by the judge and although his answers do seem uncooperative and perhaps even evasive, that doesn't constitute contempt of court. This witness has probably been HEAVILY coached by the defense team in how they want him to answer to the prosecution. And asking the kind of qualifying questions he does, and trying to remove the teeth from what the cross-examiner is asking, is a legitimate tactic.
@@apeguy4992 Do you know anything about criminals and what happens in court? Criminals gets away because of their lawyers, and some innocent people are jailed instead. The consequences of going against the law aren't always given to those who did it. Shit has been happening for years. His statements confirms the court room as a whole, not the video.
I understand what you mean, he’s so good at dodging, so that is a trait the mob would want in their guy, not “snitching” to protect valuable information and staying smooth
For people saying he should have just answered the questions as the lawyer asks them, should probably watch a few cross examination processes first. It's basically a game of chess. If a laywer is asking those questions, he's doing it to discredit the witness. And the witness is one move ahead of the lawyer every time in this instance. It might seem like he's being 'petty' when what he's actually doing is side-stepping the trap that the lawyer is putting out. If that lawyer is good at his job (and I've no doubt he is) the questions are designed to push the witness into saying something that will undermine his testimony. He's every right to give his answers in a way that doesn't unfairly prejudice his testimony.
Niko Cross examination is not always used to discredit the witness, In this case it seems that Mr. Walgren's tries to lay the groundwork to elicit helpful testimony for The People. The Doctor may have thought that Mr. Walgren sought to bash him, but the Dr.'s evasiveness came across badly to the jury. The witness, in this case, discredited himself more by trying to evade the questions than by just anwering truthfully.
Quinn Eibert. I didn't say prosecution is 'always' trying to discredit the witness. I said when the prosecution asks these questions, he most certainly is looking to undermine the Dr. I didn't see anything in what the witness said, that made him look discredible.
Niko Fair enough. The way the Doctor seems discreditable, in my eyes, is because of his evasiveness. The questions posed seem easy to answer, and the doctor's fairly hostile responses make him seem uncooperative -- make him seem as if he's hiding something.
The questions asked you could see were aimed to try and discredit him though. Easy answers yes how ever they were asked in such a way that would possibly give some discredit. If I asked you if you borrowed money and have yet to return it or asked if you had a loan that you intended to pay back which sounds better and which is asked maliciously to discredit a statement (obviously that question wasn't used in this case to simplify it) if you chose the 1st it would open up means to prove your disloyal to keeping your bargains up thus you're untrustworthy. Even the questions where he was asked with his picture on the company site that X means this, if he said yes it traps him into that statement but saying yes I think its a great statement of the company (as a whole not individual) Word play is a lawyers game, which is why they word questions the way they do.
TorrentOfficial I agree with you actually. What I'm really stressing is that because the questions are (seemingly) easy to answer, the witness's evasiveness is off putting to the jury. He might know what's coming up, but it's better for the witness to go down the garden path and answer incisive questions than to mud wrestle and lose credibility early. The Pros will eventually get the answers he's looking for.
Easy to discover. Simply check his billing records. Suddenly you will find he was working many medical jobs all full time at 160+ hours a week and depositing the paychecks.
Anyone that can't (or won't) answer a simple question like that is clearly embarrassed by the answer. His COMPETENCY is being questioned and if he gave the true answer of how much he works in dialysis per week the answer is probably 4 hours per week, thereby revealing that he doesn't know what the heck he's doing and is just dabbling a little bit in the field.
@@kristkratos I disagree with you. Doctors should only be corrected if the title "Dr." is the topic of question, or if their profession is currently being used to further some aim (like a doctor is being cross-examined). No one should EVER correct someone -- especially the damn doctor him/herself -- if "Mr." is used instead of "doctor". Testifying in court, or doing duty at the hospital are nearly the only situations where a doctor should even think of being referred to as DOCTOR.
mygoatisdead if I am in debt up to my ass and gone many years into school studying countless hours damn near going nuts from lack of sleep (which many of them do) I’ll be damned if I don’t correct someone when they say Ms instead of Dr because that’s who I am Doctor at all times
People do say that. I guess because questions are asked in court to get facts into evidence, not to elicit information as they usually would be. If you don't know the answer, it's best not to ask as you don't know how helpful (or truthful) the answer will be!
Rumplestiltskin most expert witnesses that are used in court (aka someone like this man) it is their main job to be expert witnesses so he more than likely has been in court many times
@@cherryblossom9482 He was an expert witness; opposing counsel is cross examining him after his initial testimony. From the questioning, the implication could be that he did very little medical practice.
Imagine if this guy is married. *Wife:* where were you last night? *Doc:* What do you mean by last night? *Wife:* where exactly were you and what were you doing last night? *Doc:* it depends on what hour of the night you're referring to.
Rodrick Evans - He was asked how many hours a week does he work on dialysis. That's like going up to a doctor and asking "how many hours a week do you spend speaking?"
Folks , this guy was likely an "expert witness" called by the defense. This probably wasn't his first time in the courtroom so he knows exactly how to "work" the questioning.
Exactly and the prosecutors whole goal is to try and poke holes in a “expert witness” testimony. Or just basically make him look like he isn’t an expert in front of the jury. Or who ever. I would assume That’s why he would not specifically answer the amount of time he works “in dialysis” because to someone not in the medical field the amount of hours a dr would be there would seem very minuscule.
@@k45207 Also time 'working in dialysis' is wholly unquantifiable, and inappropriate to gauge whether he is an expert. The doctor is right, he has patients, he sees them, he reviews them. The dialysis itself is done by a machine obviously and he doesn't need to sit guard while the thing works, so the amount of time he works in dialysis is immaterial to his actual expertise.
Osteotome that’s is correct “working in dialysis” is a ridiculously worded question. The act of dialyzing is just a machine working lol the problem is the dr. Is back pedaling from the start. The first question, I mean if you can even call it a question lol “ and you also do the dialysis work” and he answers “I do” which kind of green lights the weird line of questioning lol And to your point I’ve never really even seen a dr in a dialysis center, because what would they do there lol I just don’t think they he spends much time with pt’s with ESRD as there primary care dr. especially as it sounds like he works for a treatment facility.
@@k45207 yeah in the UK dialysis units typically run by nurses and healthcare assistants. There are doctors on the ward on call but they have other more important things to do generally and are only called when there's an issue. So if I were a diabetes doctor I'd say I'm technically working for the dialysis unit when I'm on call which may be 20ish hours a week
True, he does seem to be one and I understand that expert witnesses are pulled in as career testifiers, to push a narrative. But that doesn't change the prosecution's clear misdirection and entrapment attempts. What we saw here was not something you can use to push for either side morally. But if this is the state of the law, then it should be changed.
If I had a husband like that I'll drop kick his ass and tell him I'm joking and playing with his ass and see if he knows the definition of the word joke 😂
hard thing is that these clowns are intentionally making it difficult and getting paid for it, when it goes for conversation with my wife in an almost everday scenario, the conversation is real life, not $$ exchange, no acting.
Nope. It is not about being smart, it is how a jury will ultimately perceive him. He failed in that regard. He ends up coming up as defensive to a juror. All of you RUclips experts crack me up.
"Is that full time?" "What do you mean by full time?" "It typically means 48 hours a week, something like that?" "What do you mean by 48 hours a week?" "2 days a week." "What do you mean by 2 days a week? What do you mean by a day? What do you mean by a week?" "Doctor...these are just measures of time." "What do you mean by time?" "It's a dimension." "What do you mean by dimension?" "One of the elemental aspects of our reality." "What do you mean by our reality?" "It is the cosmos. The very static nature of our existence." "What do you mean by existence?"
@@sappert1952 In this legal system you have to be. If you're not you'll get fucked. He needs to be extremely careful because even if he did nothing wrong, they could frame him for saying something that he didn't mean.
@@amandah.2202 Umm but aren't judges Lawyers also? 🙄 And many of them are friends and lovers. I think that's how my employer won some of her cases; sleeping with the Queen's Counsel 😭😭 Corruption
Eejit. He would charge different tasks. Plus he would typically have a set calendar. He’s completely failing to answer. He also tries to assert that individual docs or treatments do not have related impacts. Doc is attempting to deflect with weasel words.
You could give a rough estimate. You know how many hours you typically work and what is typical of certain needs. You know that cats need more oil changes than they would work on a transmission. Even if they vary you can still give an estimate or an experience as he did. There are weeks I’m only working dialysis so it’s over 40. There are weeks where o don’t have any patience’s but most weeks I’m there half my time
the attorney was setting the doctor up for something. but the doctor was clever enough to not get caught in what the attorney was trying to accomplish.
@@Tiagosk8 he was never asking the doctor a question in the first place, all the questions are set up to get a statement that can be manipulated, absolutely no interest in the answers, unless the answers contain the statements
The doctor isn't clever - at all. A competent expert witness doesn't evade cross-examination in a fashion so trivial and childish as to turn the court's perception against them - they flip the opposing counsel's examination on its head and use it as further opportunity to undermine counsel's argument whilst strengthening their own. If you can't avoid incriminating your side without compromising your professionalism in the eyes of the jury, then you're not a useful expert witness. Furthermore, regardless of your opinion of the justice/legal system, if you're going to agree to play the game in order to earn a bit of cash on the side, then you have an obligation to act with integrity - even if it means your ego takes a hit when the opposition's attorney manages to out-manouver you. People love to rail on attorneys, but they generally act with principle once they get inside the court room (what goes on outside of trial is a different matter). You would think that people would be more concerned anytime a healthcare professional isn't capable of acting with the same integrity - especially since such cases usually revolve around the welfare of patients under their, or their colleagues', care.
@@emmanueloluga9770 I think it's fairly clear. You said the doctor was clever enough to not get caught in what the attorney was trying to accomplish. I'm saying that the doctor wasn't actually clever at all. He incorrectly assumed that every question the attorney asked was an attempt to lead him into a trap and that the best course of action would be to act as evasive as possible. Consequently, he undermined his professional credibility and integrity as an expert witness, and managed to turn jury opinion against both himself and the defense - which was the side he obviously fell on. That last point highlights another serious issue with this guy - expert witnesses are supposed to be impartial. There can be no doubt that this guy has more interest in trying to strengthen the case for the defense (the side which hired him) and undermine the case for the prosecution, in an attempt to negotiate a larger paycheck from the defense, than in trying to assist the court with reaching an unbiased, factual, and fair conclusion to the trial. That a doctor would be more concerned with padding his bottom line than with the pursuit of an honest resolution to a medical negligence case is deeply troubling - yet people seem to be holding this guy in reverence because he essentially played the adult version of 'I know you are but what am I?'
I just think he was a bit of a bitch about the hours questions, unless there was a truly important implication in answering that question in that particular manner which of course I have no idea there was.. But if you ask me he was a bitch about that question haha any moron could make a fairly close guess and if you can't well there's something not correctly working with your memory
@Gian brother thank you for reading only the part where I gave my opinion, and not the part where I humbly and smartly say “UNLESS THERE WAS A TRULY IMPORTANT IMPLICATION IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION IN THIS PARTICULAR MANNER WHICH OF COURSE I HAVE NO IDEA THERE WAS“. Go ahead, read my response this time the part to which I admit I might not know about court proceedings and then reply again. You want to make me look like I'm an idiot that doesn't know there could be more complexities to this, where all I was saying is that there is bullshit in his argument that he doesn't count.. Of course he does bro! Never said he should have or shouldn't have that's why I specifically said what I said.
@Gian and I didn't call him a bitch or a moron at all. I said he was being a bitch about the counting question, and I said any moron could give you an estimate of how much he works, which is true. But not one time I called the man a bitch or moron directly, and I'm not calling you one either, but please read things carefully next time
@Tre Andang oh ok I guess if you have a civilized debate over something and try to sort things out you're insecure about your intelligence. LISTEN PEOPLEE Tre Andang said it, don't have discussions your insecurity will show!!
@@kevinsyler2272 Presumably, giving a specific answer would tie him to specifics in further questions, such as not enough hours to qualify for 'x' claim of experience. It's the way the guy was asking general, wide-ranging questions, designed to cast a wide net of potential "Ahh, but you said earlier..." sort of arguments. The Doctor game him no room for arguments, beyond 'Yes' to a very wide-scope question. I imagine the other side coached him to be glib/evasive/specific. There's not enough context in the clip to guess at which. Or perhaps his job is that unpredictable from one week to the next, and to give a specific measurement would be misleading.
@Joe Johnson LEOs get called into court all the time and see how attorneys work. "Just because you did it doesn't mean you're guilty" is how one attorney advertised his services. me.me/i/just-because-you-did-it-doesnt-mean-youre-guilty-larry-13116206
SherlockHolmes you can stereotype as much as you want. I can stereotype you as the typical nerd ranting on RUclips as the weird one who lives in their mothers basement and eats ramen for 3 meals a day. But hey you should try to not be prejudice as there’s bad people in every country and job.
@@c4thenerd171 well im 32, a project manager, drive a 2013 v6 turbo charged camaro and a jeep willys with custom paint, im single, never been married and never had any children, live in a nice casita in downtown phoenix, eat two meals a day (nice big breakfast and usually a four course dinner...last nights meal consisted of an organic rib eye i got on sale at frys with some baby reds i just chucked in the oven with some butter and minced garlic, green beans with bacon cooked up in the cast iron and a dinky little salad that was more of an after thought, tossed in some carrots and onion and made my own house dressing out of olive oil and red vinegar. Ive had ramen noodles maybe three times in my life. See, when i described your job, i wasnt sterotyping you whatsoever. I was stating facts. Police spend more time writing tickets for traffic violations than they do stopping cartel members from selling drugs on street corners and inside fast food chains, across from schools etc...they spend more time busting repeat offenders on parole than they do solving unsolved rapes, murders and robberies. You guys spend more time on ticketing hard working individuals on their way to and from the office than you do on prostitutes, good riddance. To the extremely impoverished, you actually take food out of their childrens mouth for rolling through a stop sign or not using a turn single. By the way I hope you are better at profiling in real life than you are over the internet because you really screwed that one up you cantakerous old senile fool. Roll up your sleeves, read a book, get involved for goodness sake!
SherlockHolmes clearly not very smart though- you should go earn some more money instead of commenting on RUclips. I never said I was a cop, I just don’t stereotype like you
I see a lot of comments saying that the witness was being unnecessarily difficult in this exchange but the truth is this is how the game is played. Prosecutors are masters getting idiots to say shit & then trapping them with their own words. The trick is t subvert their expectations and not give them any kind of answer they can latch on to. What this man did was genius. Bravo.
That's what I thought at first but I'm not so sure after reading someone's comment. Because the thing is this might be true when there's no jury but when there's a jury deciding the verdict this witness might come across as defensive therefore possibly hiding sth. So I wonder.
He wasn't prepared to play ball and why should he? I wish more witnesses would do this because attorneys don't know how to deal with it and cry to the judge. Attorneys might like to dish it out but few of them can take it.
Right! And the prosecutor shouldn't have gotten so angry cause he's literally playing the game. Sorry it's not going so easy for you buddy but sometimes people are prepared and you don't get to slip words into the mouths of others as easily as you're used to
I love this doctor who is simply not going to be drawn into a trap or say anything to criticise or condemn a fellow practitioner I would guess hes a hard working conscientious and honourable man keeping loyal to his profession and not allowing himself to be dragged into a debate about someone else's practices. Odd they called him or was he a defence witness turned hostile by the prosecutor ?
That sounds like something I would expect when asking the US government for information using the Freedom of Information Act. If you don't ask the EXACT question with the EXACT wording EXACTLY right, you'll be denied. Especially if it's not something that they want to give you in the first place.
He was not intelligent. He was hired by the defense because he is paid to be evasive as to the facts of this case. He even throws in an impromptu commercial for Malibu Bullshit Hospital. He got paid to evade, and the prosecutor could of been a better lawyer, but they get paid to plea bargain, not to actually go to a real trial.
Ed Diaz he’s a lot more intelligent than that pos attorney. It’s cross examination, they are not friends. That Doctor chewed his dumb ass up and spit him out. Next time he should be more professional and learn a little bit on how to ask better questions to someone with equal if not more education, that way he cannot easily evade.(while making him look like a fucking idiot)
If you’re ever dealing with a lawyer, this is a very strong and clear way to approach them. Answer no ambiguous questions, and allows no room for the lawyer to interpret your answers.
No, not really. It makes you look uncooperative and like you're hiding something. The goal of all testimony is not to score points, but to prevent points being scored. That is best done in a jury trial with simple, short, non-confrontational answers.
Bad advice. This Dr looks shifty as heck and seems evasive, like he's trying to tailor his evidence to suit one dude rather than being independent as expert witness's are meant to be.
No-one's in court for a friendly chat. When on the stand, you need to be like this doctor- require the attorney to precisely define EVERY freakin word in EVERY question s/he asks. If you don't, your words will be twisted into falsehood later on. Doesn't matter a damn how 'annoyed' you make anyone at the time.
You will not be believable if you nitpick every question. This attorney could have asked the witness did you work an average of over 50 hours a week? Did you work an average of over 60 hours? I don't know why he didn't do that. If the witness insists he doesn't know then how does he know that it's more than 40?
Yeh, I kinda agree- you need a balance. Actually, it just occurred to me how hilariously elitist his answer was when he said "I wish I worked 40hpw, and so does my family". Of course, he meant that he regularly worked way over 40 hours- but there's millions of Americans out there who would say the same thing the other way; their families wish they had that much paid work.
all it takes is a good education and practice..trust me, i used to be the most shy/quiet person until i had to take speech class 4 times in college because i was too afraid..my school was harsh, if you didnt do 1 speech, you failed the course
As a person who has been in treatment this Doctor is absolutely correct. Medically Assisted Treatment is very situational to the person. Some doctors can help one patient and fail with another. It all depends on the person and their mental structure. A world famous Doctor can fail with a patient because that patient has outlying circumstances that cause recovery to be extremely difficult. Also this stigma against MAT patients and programs needs to end NOW. These options save peoples lives. It saved mine.
Yes but It don't awnser or remove the possibility of an imcompetant doctor treating a patient ineffectively/inappropriately. Both scenario's happen, just that there seemed to be an inability to admit this in the courtroom.
@@ghhgfjrre9982 To effectively and respectfully respond I would like to know what you meant by the comment. I will tell you that in my state that MAT is respected and an ongoing battle has been won. People have been consistently getting Tx and improving their lives. The biggest problem in the medical world is people who claim to be experts but do not understand chemical issues RELATIVELY between patients. That then echos into insurance and financial companies. If something HELPS people…. Then those who stop it are the actual disease.
@KentuckyBucky I will elaborate, within this video you can see the reluctance of the doctor to be drawn into the argument about denigrating other doctors and his approach to not doing that. But I find it bizarre that one professional can't scrutinise another and it not be viewed as denigrating rather than constructive. Sounds like it closes the option of an open dialogue between patient and doctor to review ongoing treatment that's in process. Please understand that it looks very suspect when there many professions that do the same and there has been found to be many systemic and cultural cover ups that stiffle care, progress and accountability!
Same here. I had several doctors who weren't very helpful and another Doctor Who was extremely helpful. It depends on many factors as to how the treatment will work or not work. that's why it's very important to get a second and third opinion if you're concerned about what a doctor is telling you. maybe it's a simple case of misunderstanding the doctor and somebody else explains the treatment plan better or maybe the doctor is wrong and somebody else comes up with a better treatment plan.
@@georgejamo3562 Cause this is a famous trial. The defendant is Michael Jackson's physician who prescribed him propofol. Dr Waldman was there as defense expert witness.
Agreed, this MD is the most irritating person I’ve ever seen, there’s no reason for him to not answer such simple questions! The lawyer was very patient with him, when he shouldn’t have been. What an ahole
The lawyer didnt say it was, he was asking and it took the doctor a really long time to admit that yes... yes. yes.... some doctors dont always get it right with treatment. Why is that not allowed to be said? Tribalism.
dominionofme, probably the business or one of the doctors colleagues were being sued. The doctor did not think it was right to do so, so gave the lawyer nothing to work with
Read the accompanying article. The doctor was identified as being an "expert" witness for an accused criminal defendant. He admitted that he did not have a certification in addition medicine.
jimmyfly that’s funny, how many hours your friend work? On average? A month? A year? A quarter? Are they the same number? So, I bet your friend can’t answer correctly “how many hours do you work?” I have yet to know anyone working in a hospital or clinic anywhere in the North America as medical staff keep a standard regular hours.
"Hey Sweetheart, could you define "watching"? Do you mean watching, like staring at the TV all the time? Or is it more of an occasional look on the screen while still chatting with the guys around me? I am confused there. I rather decline the questions as asked... Could you reword that..."
Sure honey - I like socializing during some of the times in my life. I think all humans will do well to socialize, I do it sometimes on Mondays, Tuesdays, and sometimes not. But could you define 'friends', 'weekend' and 'football'?
Love how this guy does not feel intimidated by the lawyer, and that he is both confident, comfortable to temain true to his profession whilst giving evidence. I also feel the judge in this trial can see that too ⚖
Interesting observation. My life experience made me understand that doctors who work in drug addiction treatment field are used to deal with liars, manipulators, deceivers, frauds and tricksters of all sorts. And that is why this Doctor is not intimidated by the lawyer, since lawyers, just like most drugs addicts, are pathological liars, tricksters and professional manipulators. If lawyers said the truth they'd end up in "Liar Liar" movie. Doctor simply treated him like one of his patients.
I was watching this and realized my wife works with him in dialysis. I’ve been listening to stories about him for the past 7 years and they all now make sense.
I don't understand why more people don't just see what's going on here. This doctor is a DEFENSE witness. When the defense was questioning him, there was no animosity, no parsing of statements, no insistence upon "specific" questions. He had no problem whatsoever explaining himself in rather boring detail to any and all defense questions which were, just like with this prosecutor, complex and multi-layered questions requiring complex and multi-layered responses. Now all of a sudden he wants to get his Irish up and do this ridiculous song and dance to avoid answering the prosecutor's questions by insisting on a yes or no format? The judge should have held him in contempt and sent him to County for 30 days just to refresh his memory of how easy it is if a witness simply....TELLS THE TRUTH!!!
@@viking956 The flat truth isn’t always what matters in a courtroom. Of course a defence witness is going to be more guarded when being cross-examined by the prosecution. Because even if the witness or the defence did absolutely nothing wrong, it’s literally the prosecution’s job to trip them up, twist their words, and make it appear as though they did. It’s what they get paid for. They need the win and at the end of the day, that’s what matters.
NPC #34008 aka GroupThink Commie The questions were leading and vague. If the Lawyer had asked something like "How many hours a week do you work at the clinic" for example than you can just give a direct answer, like 40 hours or 80 or whatever, but when you ask " how many hours a day do you work in Dialysis", well, that can change dramatically from week to week. One week you might spend the entire week in dialysis, the next you might not spend any. To give a solid definite number opens the door down the road to making you look like you are lying. You see what I am saying here?
I respect him asking for specific meaning to his questions. When your on the defence your very freedom is on the line, why would you accept a vague line of questioning leading to vague answers that could be twisted to condem you.
He's an expert witness for the defense. Someone else's freedom was on the line, and he hurt his credibility with the jury by arguing over stupid shit. This was day 19 of the Michael Jackson doctor trial, and I'm pretty confident that the jury wouldn't have been pleased with him wasting even more of their time.
mrrobvs He knows the hours he works, he’s just not going to allow the prosecutor to be able to determine his competence when it’s not relative to the case. Basically he’s saying “The hours I work have no relevance regarding why I’m here and I’m not going to follow down that rabbit hole”. Saying it like that would probably earn him a contempt charge and he’s not about to entertain prosecutorial fluff and nonsense. The expert witness, with help from a very fair judge, kept the prosecutor on point and within the scope of the case.
Elwood McDougal it’s obvious that not answering the questions serves the agenda of many witnesses in a trial. However, in this case, the actual answer to the question is relevant to the level of competency of the “expert” witness.
@@mrrobvs You are so far wrong you never even heard of Jack Shit let alone know him. The MD degree is all that is needed to establish the doctor's competency. The doctor is a far better judge of the standard of medical care than the attorney.
@@Walker_Bulldog a doctor's level of experience helps to establish his level of competency to serve as an expert witness. This is something this witness actually agrees to in his testimony. However, he is unable to speak to his level of experience in the area of dialysis, and in the area of treating addiction. While your general practicioner might cut off a skin tag every once in a while, your dermatologist might be more competent to serve as an expert in the area of skin tags. This doctor left the jury wondering if he works with significant experience in the fields for which he speaks. A full time practicing Nephrologist would be the correct doctor to serve as an expert with regard to dialysis questioning. Such a doctor would also be able to tell you the hours he worked in the relevant field last week. And doing so would help to solidify his area of expertise. While an "MD Degree" would be a piece of that puzzle, one in an irrelevant area of study would not contribute to competency on the stand. If an "MD Degree" was all it takes for someone to be competent (in any way, shape, or form), then Conrad Murray wouldn't be sitting in the background about to be convicted of manslaughter. A degree is only a piece of the puzzle for competency both in the courtroom and in practice.
"Dr. Waldman, would you like some more water?" "What do you mean, by, 'water'?" "You know, more water, like you have in your cup there." "Sir, you're saying there's water in there." "I just want to know if you want more water!" "I don't pretend to make judgements about my desire for water"...
Just giving yes or no answers is how prosecution and defence give the jury incomplete and false ideas of what really occurred. They're trying to win, not establish the truth.
Indeed. This is why the jury based system is so horribly flawed. Twelve people, with no prior legal background or standard of intelligence, decide someone's fate based almost entirely on incomplete, inaccurate, or downright false assertions from the prosecution or defence. It's so horribly flawed that I'm amazed it's still in use after all these years.
Isn't that the point of lawers? To lie and manipulate in such a specific way so they can get their client off on a technicality or something ridiculous.
Exactly. That is why its called a court. Games are played on courts. The players are the lawyers playing their games, the fans are the jury, most often very common ignorant people that only comprehend yes or no.
So then Police should stick together? Those same lawyers stick together? Or maybe politicians stick together? How about bankers? Should Bankers "stick together"? How about we all find a tribe and just... stick together.. The lawyer asked the questions in a rookie way but holy shit the ignorance of this Dr over some questions that are easy to counter or reply to is beyond me.
If doctors stuck together, then there wouldn’t be any medical malpractice lawsuits. No, he’s just not falling for the lawyer’s trap to discredit him as a doctor and getting the lawyer to break his question down to being so basic as to not allow any kind of ambiguity during the cross-examination. The lawyer was getting frustrated and tried getting the judge to make him answer the questions, which clearly didn’t work.
That wasn't the question. It started like that, asking if he works 40 hour weeks. Then it changed to how often he works in a specific unit. Doctor's can work all over in a hospital or private clinic. It's not like they have a scheduled rota like other proffessions. As he said, he comes in to work, see's everyone then goes home. That leads to varying shift hours, making it hard to come up with an average on the spot let alone in a specific unit.
They lawyer only has circumstantial reasoning and needs to confirm that, the witness makes a nonsense of such generalised arguments and more importantly destroys their "Bingo ... Bango ... Bongo ..." emotional power (hey jury it's as simple as A leads to be leads to C) ... an act of genus on the part of the witness ... in essence he is saying , prove the specifics of the case and I am going to make you pay for characterization (generalizations) that amount to slurs, in essence you don't have a case because you're making stuff up ...
The reason the witness is being reasonable here is because he is playing defense and every single thing he agrees to or answers yes to, if not specific enough can and will be used against him in every possible way to discredit him. As someone else said they do not do it to establish truth about this witness but to make him 'lose', if it was simply a truth-telling exercise you wouldn't need to act in such a manner.
This witness provided extremely poor "expert testimony" and the way that he answered every question that the prosecutor asked him made him less and less reliable and credible.
@rats arsed correct, and it never hurts to have one of the best criminal defense lawyers, especially the ones that can stretch a case for a period of 5 years, and obliterate a 15 year minman. 😀
I grew up in a predominately impoverished neighborhood and I can tell you, from lack of education with the advanced English language, it makes me kind of sad to imagine someone without the proper education in the stand with someone like this playing a verbal game of chess against them but it's for their life And I appreciate the likes even if it was just voicing my opinion fam
My impression is that this is very much an American thing. Been to a couple of trials in Sweden, and there's not much of a chess game going on (well, tbh,not in this vid either, more like hide and seek).
That is why you get the help of a witness advocate/coordinator to help you understand what's going on in the courtroom and how you should respond to questions
Martin G it really is like they say. If he answered the question with the exact number or hours, the jury would think they are just a few (as they probably have no experience in the field), and think he is not so expert in the field. The lawyer's objective here is to discredit the witness, and by doing that he would have had a point in his favour.
@@cortneyrens arrogant? You like so many people didn't get what the video is showing, this guy is actually answering his questions correctly and not falling into the lawyers tricks, apparently almost everyone is irritated by the Dr when they should learn from him, he destroyed the lawyer
Lmao god I pity the idiots that think the doctor won here. Then again, Trump was elected so I am not entirely surprised youtube comments are crawling with morons.
mongo man: best part was when lawyer said why can you answer other lawyer fully but not my questions... pretty pissed lawyer... those idiots who are trying to discredit the doctor have no clue about the job let alone understand what is being questioned... i guess trumpers...
jimmyfly Asking how many hours one worked can be used against them in many ways. Too many hours and they'll say the Physician was fatigued. Too little hours and suddenly the Physician might not be experienced enough or considered a slacker. These are just some examples how that statement regarding hours can most certainly be used against someone.
I'm not sure this qualifies as a demonstration of intelligence in the least. Simple question, simple answer. When you choose to convolute it to high hell, completely unnecessarily, you come out looking more like an ass than a genius....
Wow I wish this video was 1 hour long , the Doctor is a boss, a gangsta , man he puts John gotti to shame , master at giving just the right info, the lawyer is clearly trying to trip him but the docs on cue !! Love the Doc he should be the lawyer
3:31 this is his point. lawyer trying to make it look like defendant provides improper care compared to doctor. or something like that, i'm not a lawyer
Does actually no one sees that the lawyer is trying to trick him into answering what he wants and the Dr isnt falling for any bullshit? Are people stupid
@@XxDrJewxX Apparently, yes. Everyone is stupid. I'm pretty shocked at the number of comments that are straight-up bashing the doctor and accusing him of dancing around an issue. The man knows that nuance is important and specificity is paramount if you want a fair legal decision. The judge clearly understood this. When the questions were asked in a manner that would leave no room for misinterpretation he answered them. He was well-spoken, honest, and professional. Do people honestly expect the wild west in a courtroom? This is why our justice system is fucked.
I worked in addiction treatment myself. My patients may have had the very best in prior care for all I know, and still relapsed. It doesn't mean the staff at the prior facility did a bad job. Some addicts just aren't ready to get better. Treatment isn't a magic cure; patients need to do further work after rehab.
agreed. you can give people as much treatment as you want. if they dont have the heart in it and the will to see it through, no treatment plan in the world can cure you.
My addiction was to cigarettes. Nothing like as bad as alcohol, gambling hard drugs, but the one thing I can say from experience is until you deep down decide you want to quit no amount of outside help will do the job.
drsatanrx Dude what are you like 12 years old ? Everyone has different perceptions and definitions, who are you to say that it’s not badass ? And to write a comment just to say that ? You really are petty or a child ... possibly both. Grow up mister.
Jordan: Ralph "Match-io", family name, is actually Italian in origin, so it would actually be pronounced, uh, Ralph, "Ma-ck-io", this is in part due to the pronunciation of the repeated, or double "c", macc, would likely be "MACK", not "Match". Incidentally, this is a regional pronunciation likely due to the hardened tongue of the southern half of Europe, which, predominately, is where Italy is located so if we analyze the... Ralph: It's "Match-io" though. Jordan: Well you're wrong.
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
you don’t find this video this video finds you
😂😂😂
C0mpl1c4t3d SO TRUEEEEEEE
most true space pep
you don't find this comment, it finds you, and then keeps finding you over an over in every video that finds you.
jarlaxle2445 d.a 🤣🤣 idk y I was watching that
This a a great documentary piece on me asking my girlfriend where she wants to eat
Keith Myer 😂😂
what do you mean by "eat"
Paul William it’s a joke stupid
Paul William turn on your brain
@Paul William don't make a stupid ass comment if you don't want people telling you how fucking stupid it is
The judge seems kind and fair.
Exactly my thought as well! It would be really to have judges just like him every where
@Knowledge_Seeker and hopefully, said judge, will never find himself on the wrong side of the law
The judge even admitted cross-examination is putting words in your mouth
I mean a judge by definition is supposed to be fair lol
@@semtexsam1512 And then you accepting or rejecting the truth of those words. Nice of you to leave out the pertinent part of his statement.
Moral of the story:
In a court, never say things that you think are probably true, only say that things that you know for a fact are true whenever you're a witness
Lol your name
No.
Just answer the questions. Thats all you are there for. You are required by law.
@@atm9566 So you're going to lie by answering a question you do not know? That's a felony you know, lying in court as a witness.
No ask them to define and clarify all their questions because they distort reality to suit their perceptions.
I am still trying to figure out who the villain is.
Haha, that's why I'm reading the comments.
That is simple the guilty party, one who causes harm to another with knowledge and intent to do so. In this short minute it is the attorney who is trying to set up the Dr. to say what he wants him to say to use against someone or him... probably to "depose" the Doctor so he can discredit his testimony and thus the voracity, reliability and relevance of his testimony.
@@paigeleigh2554 me too!
@@sarahkitz6901
😂😂😂😂
colin-man yeates-clan wouldn’t they both be causing harm to each other since the man is an expert witness for the opposition?
I think the most overlooked aspect in this video is the mic quality.
Kunaal Thakur usually these type of videos its like the shittiest thing i've ever heard even though its filmed in an official government building
Lol
Ooh, yes. Beautiful sound.
Yes shallow and pedantic. Indubitably
🤣😂
I’d hire the doctor as a lawyer...
that's not a great thing to do as a witness, generally doing that on purpose leads the jury to believe they are hiding something and not just avoiding questions. the lawyer did a great job of keeping his cool and not badgering him. I'd take the lawyer any day
Nutrition Facts that’s because the doctors a Jew and the Lawer isn’t us Jews are the best we are gods in the medical field and court room 👨⚖️
Jenell McGrew doesn’t matter, can’t convict someone on hearsay. You can think they’re guilty all day long with them answering around a question, but it boils down to irrefutable evidence.
definitely a DWI case
Facts
“I never want to embellish what I do by denigrating what a colleague does.” - good quote
That was pure bullshit.
@@atm9566 it actually is not, I’m in sports medicine. It’s hard to say your treatment was better or worse then another specialist, simply because it would be impossible to cross examine one variable in a multi variable equation. It’s simple logistics
actually he does, frequently. he just doesn't want to get caught doing it.
@@JudgeHill Your proof being?
@@myrixica4222 My intuition
The judge seemed like a chill dude
Poor little attorney didn't like it when he got a taste of his own medicine. More witnesses should give attorneys a hard time. make the fuckers sweat. having done that, find out where they live and start a process of Chinese water torture and persecute the little runts. You're a fucking toady.
@@geoffpoole483 Lol fucking hell mate chill out
@no way That's not really appropriate in this case. The witness responded to court instructions when asked to do so by the judge and although his answers do seem uncooperative and perhaps even evasive, that doesn't constitute contempt of court.
This witness has probably been HEAVILY coached by the defense team in how they want him to answer to the prosecution. And asking the kind of qualifying questions he does, and trying to remove the teeth from what the cross-examiner is asking, is a legitimate tactic.
Geoff Poole Someone‘s been fucked over by a lawyer too many times lmao.
@@geoffpoole483 ok boomer
This is why they say, it's not who's innocent or guilty, it's who has the better lawyer.
Not really but a lawyer with a lot of resources gives a big advantage
@@apeguy4992 No, he actually has a point. There are so many criminals who got away because of their lawyer.
@@apeguy4992 take a chill pill, he is actually right.
@@apeguy4992 Do you know anything about criminals and what happens in court? Criminals gets away because of their lawyers, and some innocent people are jailed instead. The consequences of going against the law aren't always given to those who did it. Shit has been happening for years.
His statements confirms the court room as a whole, not the video.
@@apeguy4992 and your first statement was rude and quite inappropriate.
I really should be sleeping but I ended up here.
and we don't care.
mo mo exact same. It’s 1 fucking 30 at nite
6:04 A.M here in San Antonio lol
mo mo this is to real idk how in here
5:30am Saskatchewan Canada
I feel like I just walked in on season 3. I need more.
underrated comment right here
Lol bro SAMEE
🤣🤣🤣
Underrated comment
lmfao
Can't tell me this guy isn't a defense witness for the mob.
empire - the evidence suggests otherwise.
Death in life taken so easilyyyyy
LetsGetHighOnMorris RIGHT OR WRONG. WHOS CHOICE WILL IT BEEEE
I understand what you mean, he’s so good at dodging, so that is a trait the mob would want in their guy, not “snitching” to protect valuable information and staying smooth
@Jim McCracken Hah! Got him
I like that judge. He seems very reasonable.
Wouldn't want it any other way.
Really thin slice
It's cuz the witness is white
Ground Beef Why are you so racist?
@@Stan13377 Statistically he's completely right, a lot of judges are racist, especially in the United States. Sorry that facts hurt your feelings.
For people saying he should have just answered the questions as the lawyer asks them, should probably watch a few cross examination processes first. It's basically a game of chess. If a laywer is asking those questions, he's doing it to discredit the witness. And the witness is one move ahead of the lawyer every time in this instance. It might seem like he's being 'petty' when what he's actually doing is side-stepping the trap that the lawyer is putting out. If that lawyer is good at his job (and I've no doubt he is) the questions are designed to push the witness into saying something that will undermine his testimony. He's every right to give his answers in a way that doesn't unfairly prejudice his testimony.
Niko Cross examination is not always used to discredit the witness, In this case it seems that Mr. Walgren's tries to lay the groundwork to elicit helpful testimony for The People. The Doctor may have thought that Mr. Walgren sought to bash him, but the Dr.'s evasiveness came across badly to the jury. The witness, in this case, discredited himself more by trying to evade the questions than by just anwering truthfully.
Quinn Eibert. I didn't say prosecution is 'always' trying to discredit the witness. I said when the prosecution asks these questions, he most certainly is looking to undermine the Dr. I didn't see anything in what the witness said, that made him look discredible.
Niko Fair enough. The way the Doctor seems discreditable, in my eyes, is because of his evasiveness. The questions posed seem easy to answer, and the doctor's fairly hostile responses make him seem uncooperative -- make him seem as if he's hiding something.
The questions asked you could see were aimed to try and discredit him though. Easy answers yes how ever they were asked in such a way that would possibly give some discredit. If I asked you if you borrowed money and have yet to return it or asked if you had a loan that you intended to pay back which sounds better and which is asked maliciously to discredit a statement (obviously that question wasn't used in this case to simplify it) if you chose the 1st it would open up means to prove your disloyal to keeping your bargains up thus you're untrustworthy.
Even the questions where he was asked with his picture on the company site that X means this, if he said yes it traps him into that statement but saying yes I think its a great statement of the company (as a whole not individual) Word play is a lawyers game, which is why they word questions the way they do.
TorrentOfficial I agree with you actually. What I'm really stressing is that because the questions are (seemingly) easy to answer, the witness's evasiveness is off putting to the jury. He might know what's coming up, but it's better for the witness to go down the garden path and answer incisive questions than to mud wrestle and lose credibility early. The Pros will eventually get the answers he's looking for.
It seems to me like the witness is cross examining the attorney.
Did this just randomly pop up in everyone's suggestions years later
Whyyyyy did it just show up.... and why did I click on it? ...what is this magic!
jim can't swim
Yaesss
It’s really not random if you watched any videos like this recently RUclips finds other videos with similar topics
@@user-us9ph9jw1g why you telling us whats behind the curtain?? Keep the mystery!! Hahahahaha😝🤣
Legend has it to this day that he is still asking how many hours he has worked in dialysis
Why is this not the top comment??
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Thanks 😂
Easy to discover. Simply check his billing records. Suddenly you will find he was working many medical jobs all full time at 160+ hours a week and depositing the paychecks.
😂😂😂..this killed me
Anyone that can't (or won't) answer a simple question like that is clearly embarrassed by the answer. His COMPETENCY is being questioned and if he gave the true answer of how much he works in dialysis per week the answer is probably 4 hours per week, thereby revealing that he doesn't know what the heck he's doing and is just dabbling a little bit in the field.
" Approximately how many hours a week do you work in dialysis?" "Like, between eleventy-three and twentyteen."
Haha lol
😂
Chris Quinn 😂😂😂
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
😂😂😂
“Mr. Waltman…”
“Dr. Waltman”
I like this guy.
He's a plonker.
Defense attorney@4:25 "Mr. Waldman.."
Judge interrupts "Dr. Waldman"
Nice for the respect lol
@@kristkratos I disagree with you. Doctors should only be corrected if the title "Dr." is the topic of question, or if their profession is currently being used to further some aim (like a doctor is being cross-examined).
No one should EVER correct someone -- especially the damn doctor him/herself -- if "Mr." is used instead of "doctor". Testifying in court, or doing duty at the hospital are nearly the only situations where a doctor should even think of being referred to as DOCTOR.
mygoatisdead if I am in debt up to my ass and gone many years into school studying countless hours damn near going nuts from lack of sleep (which many of them do) I’ll be damned if I don’t correct someone when they say Ms instead of Dr because that’s who I am Doctor at all times
@@mygoatisdead - If he's an expert witness, using his title is actually very important.
Kaldorath exactly. He didn’t say mr. by accident. He’s trying to discredit him in every way including using subtle tactics like that.
@@JustLikeAFlower So when a Doctor's S/O is in bed with them are they obligated to call them Dr.________ whilst procreating? Just curious.
A lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer already
Blassas Tugan 🤣🤣🤣 I use to tell my ex I don’t ever ask questions I don’t already know the answer to.
People do say that. I guess because questions are asked in court to get facts into evidence, not to elicit information as they usually would be. If you don't know the answer, it's best not to ask as you don't know how helpful (or truthful) the answer will be!
@@CynthiaAnn3199 Well you must not have learned much about life then
Not always.
Actually that is not true and if you were a lawyer you would know that.
By the way the doctor answered the lawyers questions, it seemed like he has appeared in court many times before.
Rumplestiltskin most expert witnesses that are used in court (aka someone like this man) it is their main job to be expert witnesses so he more than likely has been in court many times
yes he gets big money for being a professional expert witness
And also hiding alot
@@MrAjallday91 what do you mean by hiding alot?
@@AirMarshal1989 what is the definition of hiding?
Amazing how well he reads lawyer traps. He a special forces witness.
Not even sure why he showed up. He's of NO USE. A waste of the court's time 😭😭😭
@@cherryblossom9482 Probably paid.
@@cherryblossom9482 He was an expert witness; opposing counsel is cross examining him after his initial testimony. From the questioning, the implication could be that he did very little medical practice.
@@geoffpoole483 Expert witnesses are paid and that is normally brought out in direct examination.
But he told on himself
Imagine if this guy is married.
*Wife:* where were you last night?
*Doc:* What do you mean by last night?
*Wife:* where exactly were you and what were you doing last night?
*Doc:* it depends on what hour of the night you're referring to.
😂
😂😂😂
very good
Jodi arias: I was with him but I was in the fog I think....wait I don’t remember if that makes sense!
Omg this is painful to watch 😲
"How many hours do you work a week?"
"Its variable."
"Can you give me a range?"
"Between 1 and 50."
those are rookie numbers. Try 1-168
@jjpyae Between 168 and 200.
Oh, and I also own a time machine.
Rodrick Evans - He was asked how many hours a week does he work on dialysis.
That's like going up to a doctor and asking "how many hours a week do you spend speaking?"
Rodrick Evans clearly you’ve never had a job
Rodrick Evans nonsense. He’s not being asked how many hours he worked at McDonald’s, he’s being asked how many hours he drops fries.
Folks , this guy was likely an "expert witness" called by the defense. This probably wasn't his first time in the courtroom so he knows exactly how to "work" the questioning.
Exactly and the prosecutors whole goal is to try and poke holes in a “expert witness” testimony. Or just basically make him look like he isn’t an expert in front of the jury. Or who ever. I would assume That’s why he would not specifically answer the amount of time he works “in dialysis” because to someone not in the medical field the amount of hours a dr would be there would seem very minuscule.
@@k45207 Also time 'working in dialysis' is wholly unquantifiable, and inappropriate to gauge whether he is an expert. The doctor is right, he has patients, he sees them, he reviews them. The dialysis itself is done by a machine obviously and he doesn't need to sit guard while the thing works, so the amount of time he works in dialysis is immaterial to his actual expertise.
Osteotome that’s is correct “working in dialysis” is a ridiculously worded question. The act of dialyzing is just a machine working lol the problem is the dr. Is back pedaling from the start. The first question, I mean if you can even call it a question lol “ and you also do the dialysis work” and he answers “I do” which kind of green lights the weird line of questioning lol And to your point I’ve never really even seen a dr in a dialysis center, because what would they do there lol I just don’t think they he spends much time with pt’s with ESRD as there primary care dr. especially as it sounds like he works for a treatment facility.
@@k45207 yeah in the UK dialysis units typically run by nurses and healthcare assistants. There are doctors on the ward on call but they have other more important things to do generally and are only called when there's an issue. So if I were a diabetes doctor I'd say I'm technically working for the dialysis unit when I'm on call which may be 20ish hours a week
True, he does seem to be one and I understand that expert witnesses are pulled in as career testifiers, to push a narrative. But that doesn't change the prosecution's clear misdirection and entrapment attempts. What we saw here was not something you can use to push for either side morally. But if this is the state of the law, then it should be changed.
Legend says he still didn’t say how many hours he worked last week
I heard he’s still calculating!😂
This Doc knows his way of answering questions!
he must have been married for a very long time x)
YT ACC or not married for a very longtime 😂
🤣
If I had a husband like that I'll drop kick his ass and tell him I'm joking and playing with his ass and see if he knows the definition of the word joke 😂
🤣
Do you really think that ANY woman would put up with this asshole?
Me and my wife.. anyday
Thank you for the laugh, friend
@@themorrows2912 No problem friend
That made me laugh!
Funny ..You got me here laughing in Kenya, Nairobi
hard thing is that these clowns are intentionally making it difficult and getting paid for it, when it goes for conversation with my wife in an almost everday scenario, the conversation is real life, not $$ exchange, no acting.
So many ppl think he's stupid but he's answering very smart way doesn't give him a hit .
literally no one thinks he's stupid
Nope. It is not about being smart, it is how a jury will ultimately perceive him.
He failed in that regard. He ends up coming up as defensive to a juror.
All of you RUclips experts crack me up.
a youtube expert criticizing youtube experts, I think there's a word for that
@@jim_dog id wanna defend myself too if i was up there " expert "
I would like to give him a hit.
Q “Dr Waldman, how many people work at your clinic”?
A “About half of them”!!!
"Is that full time?"
"What do you mean by full time?"
"It typically means 48 hours a week, something like that?"
"What do you mean by 48 hours a week?"
"2 days a week."
"What do you mean by 2 days a week? What do you mean by a day? What do you mean by a week?"
"Doctor...these are just measures of time."
"What do you mean by time?"
"It's a dimension."
"What do you mean by dimension?"
"One of the elemental aspects of our reality."
"What do you mean by our reality?"
"It is the cosmos. The very static nature of our existence."
"What do you mean by existence?"
Hahaha
Brilliant
lawyer- “fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck”
It’s the Universe itself. (Neil deGrasse Tyson)
He’s a Jordan Peterson Fan.
"Would you like to take a break and go to the restrooom?"
"I dunno. Define 'restroom"..."
"It’s where you take massive sh*t"
hahaha
@@billoddy5637 Don't put sh*t in my mouth
Ikr this witness is frustrating af.
@@sappert1952 In this legal system you have to be. If you're not you'll get fucked. He needs to be extremely careful because even if he did nothing wrong, they could frame him for saying something that he didn't mean.
Great Judge! He is calm and even corrects the DA when he calls the Dr. by Mr.
He explained the cross exam to the witness so nicely too, seems like a great guy
I feel like judges don’t like lawyers lol
@@amandah.2202 Umm but aren't judges Lawyers also? 🙄 And many of them are friends and lovers. I think that's how my employer won some of her cases; sleeping with the Queen's Counsel 😭😭 Corruption
@@amandah.2202 They don't like themselves? Judges all went to law school.
@@HisTrophyWyfe not true actually
"You're a car mechanic, is that correct?"
"Yes."
"Then how many hours per week do you work on transmissions?"
Yes.
Great example!
Eejit. He would charge different tasks. Plus he would typically
have a set calendar. He’s completely failing to answer.
He also tries to assert that individual docs or treatments do not have related impacts.
Doc is attempting to deflect with weasel words.
You could give a rough estimate. You know how many hours you typically work and what is typical of certain needs. You know that cats need more oil changes than they would work on a transmission. Even if they vary you can still give an estimate or an experience as he did. There are weeks I’m only working dialysis so it’s over 40. There are weeks where o don’t have any patience’s but most weeks I’m there half my time
“Yes, I’m a mechanic.”
“How many hours do you mechanic?”
“I don’t know.”
“Yes you do, you annoying piece of shit”
the attorney was setting the doctor up for something. but the doctor was clever enough to not get caught in what the attorney was trying to accomplish.
The doctor still answered his question, just differently phrased.
@@Tiagosk8 he was never asking the doctor a question in the first place, all the questions are set up to get a statement that can be manipulated, absolutely no interest in the answers, unless the answers contain the statements
The doctor isn't clever - at all. A competent expert witness doesn't evade cross-examination in a fashion so trivial and childish as to turn the court's perception against them - they flip the opposing counsel's examination on its head and use it as further opportunity to undermine counsel's argument whilst strengthening their own. If you can't avoid incriminating your side without compromising your professionalism in the eyes of the jury, then you're not a useful expert witness. Furthermore, regardless of your opinion of the justice/legal system, if you're going to agree to play the game in order to earn a bit of cash on the side, then you have an obligation to act with integrity - even if it means your ego takes a hit when the opposition's attorney manages to out-manouver you. People love to rail on attorneys, but they generally act with principle once they get inside the court room (what goes on outside of trial is a different matter). You would think that people would be more concerned anytime a healthcare professional isn't capable of acting with the same integrity - especially since such cases usually revolve around the welfare of patients under their, or their colleagues', care.
@@johnblake5688 This is a honest question..Bro what are you tsking about in context to this video
@@emmanueloluga9770 I think it's fairly clear. You said the doctor was clever enough to not get caught in what the attorney was trying to accomplish. I'm saying that the doctor wasn't actually clever at all. He incorrectly assumed that every question the attorney asked was an attempt to lead him into a trap and that the best course of action would be to act as evasive as possible. Consequently, he undermined his professional credibility and integrity as an expert witness, and managed to turn jury opinion against both himself and the defense - which was the side he obviously fell on. That last point highlights another serious issue with this guy - expert witnesses are supposed to be impartial. There can be no doubt that this guy has more interest in trying to strengthen the case for the defense (the side which hired him) and undermine the case for the prosecution, in an attempt to negotiate a larger paycheck from the defense, than in trying to assist the court with reaching an unbiased, factual, and fair conclusion to the trial. That a doctor would be more concerned with padding his bottom line than with the pursuit of an honest resolution to a medical negligence case is deeply troubling - yet people seem to be holding this guy in reverence because he essentially played the adult version of 'I know you are but what am I?'
"How many hours per week do you work in dialysis"
"All of them."
but I also DON'T work 40 hours a week, wish I did tho
@@Runexn because I work moreeeeee
I SPIT ALL OVER MY PHONE
“Yes”
LOL
an intelligent man that knew the right answers to the wrong questions
The witness will be addressed as doctor. I believe he earned it.
Actually, that doctor was smart to avoid falling into the traps of that attorney of state, also showed a lot of commitment and principle to his work.
I just think he was a bit of a bitch about the hours questions, unless there was a truly important implication in answering that question in that particular manner which of course I have no idea there was.. But if you ask me he was a bitch about that question haha any moron could make a fairly close guess and if you can't well there's something not correctly working with your memory
@Gian brother thank you for reading only the part where I gave my opinion, and not the part where I humbly and smartly say “UNLESS THERE WAS A TRULY IMPORTANT IMPLICATION IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION IN THIS PARTICULAR MANNER WHICH OF COURSE I HAVE NO IDEA THERE WAS“. Go ahead, read my response this time the part to which I admit I might not know about court proceedings and then reply again. You want to make me look like I'm an idiot that doesn't know there could be more complexities to this, where all I was saying is that there is bullshit in his argument that he doesn't count.. Of course he does bro! Never said he should have or shouldn't have that's why I specifically said what I said.
@Gian and I didn't call him a bitch or a moron at all. I said he was being a bitch about the counting question, and I said any moron could give you an estimate of how much he works, which is true. But not one time I called the man a bitch or moron directly, and I'm not calling you one either, but please read things carefully next time
@Tre Andang oh ok I guess if you have a civilized debate over something and try to sort things out you're insecure about your intelligence. LISTEN PEOPLEE Tre Andang said it, don't have discussions your insecurity will show!!
@@kevinsyler2272 Presumably, giving a specific answer would tie him to specifics in further questions, such as not enough hours to qualify for 'x' claim of experience. It's the way the guy was asking general, wide-ranging questions, designed to cast a wide net of potential "Ahh, but you said earlier..." sort of arguments. The Doctor game him no room for arguments, beyond 'Yes' to a very wide-scope question.
I imagine the other side coached him to be glib/evasive/specific. There's not enough context in the clip to guess at which. Or perhaps his job is that unpredictable from one week to the next, and to give a specific measurement would be misleading.
I don't know why, but court procedure is fascinating
Skill Cosby despite knowing the outcome of this case, I have seen all the videos of this hearing. And I’m not even a lawyer
Of course Cosby would say that
Lol I am the same way. I wanna go to law school when I get my Bachelor's Degree.
You'll love this one ruclips.net/video/8YWJcqISKJQ/видео.html
I suppose because they are mentally engaging and unusual, which satisfies your curiosity
As a former LEO I must say that this Dr. did a damn fine job in not letting this attorney lead him by the nose.
@Joe Johnson LEOs get called into court all the time and see how attorneys work. "Just because you did it doesn't mean you're guilty" is how one attorney advertised his services. me.me/i/just-because-you-did-it-doesnt-mean-youre-guilty-larry-13116206
SherlockHolmes you can stereotype as much as you want. I can stereotype you as the typical nerd ranting on RUclips as the weird one who lives in their mothers basement and eats ramen for 3 meals a day. But hey you should try to not be prejudice as there’s bad people in every country and job.
@@c4thenerd171 well im 32, a project manager, drive a 2013 v6 turbo charged camaro and a jeep willys with custom paint, im single, never been married and never had any children, live in a nice casita in downtown phoenix, eat two meals a day (nice big breakfast and usually a four course dinner...last nights meal consisted of an organic rib eye i got on sale at frys with some baby reds i just chucked in the oven with some butter and minced garlic, green beans with bacon cooked up in the cast iron and a dinky little salad that was more of an after thought, tossed in some carrots and onion and made my own house dressing out of olive oil and red vinegar. Ive had ramen noodles maybe three times in my life.
See, when i described your job, i wasnt sterotyping you whatsoever. I was stating facts. Police spend more time writing tickets for traffic violations than they do stopping cartel members from selling drugs on street corners and inside fast food chains, across from schools etc...they spend more time busting repeat offenders on parole than they do solving unsolved rapes, murders and robberies. You guys spend more time on ticketing hard working individuals on their way to and from the office than you do on prostitutes, good riddance. To the extremely impoverished, you actually take food out of their childrens mouth for rolling through a stop sign or not using a turn single.
By the way I hope you are better at profiling in real life than you are over the internet because you really screwed that one up you cantakerous old senile fool. Roll up your sleeves, read a book, get involved for goodness sake!
SherlockHolmes clearly not very smart though- you should go earn some more money instead of commenting on RUclips. I never said I was a cop, I just don’t stereotype like you
i agree Doc done well its double negative questioning designed to trip him up and confuse him one attorney get in there bang norm people will crumble
Sometimes I work for an hour, sometimes 60 minutes. It varies.
“I wish I worked 40 hours a week” haha
Poor guy, 35 hours twiddling my thumbs wears me out
@@10aDowningStreet maybe its not hard enough
Then he set back like a douche and the prosecutor was like uhh, cool story. Care to actually answer it, nerd?
drizzal83 you jelly boi?
@@fairoboilawrence5287 "you jelly?" makes zero sense in the context of my comment.
I need this Dr to replace my Lawyer 😒
If you can't do the time then don't do the crime. 🐆
@@inouskehashibira1045 or just get a real good lawyer lol
@@inouskehashibira1045 Oh, I can do it. But why not do your best to avoid it. Know what I mean , Sport ? ;)
@@Nails4eeth pussy
@@inouskehashibira1045 "pussy".....your astute remark has really laced me up, Buttercup.
I see a lot of comments saying that the witness was being unnecessarily difficult in this exchange but the truth is this is how the game is played. Prosecutors are masters getting idiots to say shit & then trapping them with their own words. The trick is t subvert their expectations and not give them any kind of answer they can latch on to. What this man did was genius. Bravo.
That's what I thought at first but I'm not so sure after reading someone's comment. Because the thing is this might be true when there's no jury but when there's a jury deciding the verdict this witness might come across as defensive therefore possibly hiding sth. So I wonder.
He wasn't prepared to play ball and why should he? I wish more witnesses would do this because attorneys don't know how to deal with it and cry to the judge. Attorneys might like to dish it out but few of them can take it.
The jury will hate this doctor.
It’s like when cops ask me .... what are you doing .... I respond with what are you doing?!
Right! And the prosecutor shouldn't have gotten so angry cause he's literally playing the game. Sorry it's not going so easy for you buddy but sometimes people are prepared and you don't get to slip words into the mouths of others as easily as you're used to
I love this doctor who is simply not going to be drawn into a trap or say anything to criticise or condemn a fellow practitioner I would guess hes a hard working conscientious and honourable man keeping loyal to his profession and not allowing himself to be dragged into a debate about someone else's practices. Odd they called him or was he a defence witness turned hostile by the prosecutor ?
This guy understands what function the court serves.
Which guy? I'm seeing several guys.
REEEEE!!!!
Are you assuming genders!!
Jk jk lol
@@jstnjns8927 That joke was never funny & it's getting old.
@@d3l3tes00n just like you
@@lancebaker1374 the doc
you have to play it like the hologram in in I-robot.
"my responses are limited, you must ask the right questions"
Fucking gold lol
That quote carries the movie :D
YES!!! LMAO
"That detective, is the right question"....still no answer
That sounds like something I would expect when asking the US government for information using the Freedom of Information Act. If you don't ask the EXACT question with the EXACT wording EXACTLY right, you'll be denied. Especially if it's not something that they want to give you in the first place.
Love watching lawyers lose their bearing when they're caught off guard by someone intelligent. Haha.
was not expecting to see you on this video :O
officer401
Arrest him no balls
He was not intelligent. He was hired by the defense because he is paid to be evasive as to the facts of this case. He even throws in an impromptu commercial for Malibu Bullshit Hospital. He got paid to evade, and the prosecutor could of been a better lawyer, but they get paid to plea bargain, not to actually go to a real trial.
Officer 401-
Intelligent? The guy can't even give a straight answer regarding what does during his work week. Definitely not a doctor I'd ever go to.
Ed Diaz he’s a lot more intelligent than that pos attorney. It’s cross examination, they are not friends. That Doctor chewed his dumb ass up and spit him out. Next time he should be more professional and learn a little bit on how to ask better questions to someone with equal if not more education, that way he cannot easily evade.(while making him look like a fucking idiot)
I don't know why I like this doctor's testimony so much but I rewatch this every once in a while.
Same. I think it's absolutely hilarious. So many aspects of it crack me up
If you’re ever dealing with a lawyer, this is a very strong and clear way to approach them. Answer no ambiguous questions, and allows no room for the lawyer to interpret your answers.
No, not really. It makes you look uncooperative and like you're hiding something. The goal of all testimony is not to score points, but to prevent points being scored. That is best done in a jury trial with simple, short, non-confrontational answers.
Bad advice.
This Dr looks shifty as heck and seems evasive, like he's trying to tailor his evidence to suit one dude rather than being independent as expert witness's are meant to be.
Good advice, to be honest. People tend to forget that "Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law."
This, exactly. unless you get an attorney to tell you otherwise
'How many hours a week do you work in dialysis' is not an ambiguous question!
No-one's in court for a friendly chat. When on the stand, you need to be like this doctor- require the attorney to precisely define EVERY freakin word in EVERY question s/he asks. If you don't, your words will be twisted into falsehood later on. Doesn't matter a damn how 'annoyed' you make anyone at the time.
You will not be believable if you nitpick every question.
This attorney could have asked the witness did you work an average of over 50 hours a week? Did you work an average of over 60 hours? I don't know why he didn't do that. If the witness insists he doesn't know then how does he know that it's more than 40?
Yeh, I kinda agree- you need a balance. Actually, it just occurred to me how hilariously elitist his answer was when he said "I wish I worked 40hpw, and so does my family". Of course, he meant that he regularly worked way over 40 hours- but there's millions of Americans out there who would say the same thing the other way; their families wish they had that much paid work.
That is a fucked up court system then, plain and simple.
that's just how the game works
,mn
I wish I was this well-spoken under stress or "on the fly".
D T SAME!!
@dbenson31 that's even harder
Get some life experience and you will be much calmer in stressful situations
all it takes is a good education and practice..trust me, i used to be the most shy/quiet person until i had to take speech class 4 times in college because i was too afraid..my school was harsh, if you didnt do 1 speech, you failed the course
Just takes practice.
People think debate and school politics are lame and nerdy but it actually provides incredible real world skill.
As a person who has been in treatment this Doctor is absolutely correct. Medically Assisted Treatment is very situational to the person. Some doctors can help one patient and fail with another. It all depends on the person and their mental structure. A world famous Doctor can fail with a patient because that patient has outlying circumstances that cause recovery to be extremely difficult. Also this stigma against MAT patients and programs needs to end NOW. These options save peoples lives. It saved mine.
Yes but It don't awnser or remove the possibility of an imcompetant doctor treating a patient ineffectively/inappropriately. Both scenario's happen, just that there seemed to be an inability to admit this in the courtroom.
@@ghhgfjrre9982 To effectively and respectfully respond I would like to know what you meant by the comment.
I will tell you that in my state that MAT is respected and an ongoing battle has been won.
People have been consistently getting Tx and improving their lives.
The biggest problem in the medical world is people who claim to be experts but do not understand chemical issues RELATIVELY between patients.
That then echos into insurance and financial companies.
If something HELPS people…. Then those who stop it are the actual disease.
@KentuckyBucky I will elaborate, within this video you can see the reluctance of the doctor to be drawn into the argument about denigrating other doctors and his approach to not doing that. But I find it bizarre that one professional can't scrutinise another and it not be viewed as denigrating rather than constructive. Sounds like it closes the option of an open dialogue between patient and doctor to review ongoing treatment that's in process. Please understand that it looks very suspect when there many professions that do the same and there has been found to be many systemic and cultural cover ups that stiffle care, progress and accountability!
Same here. I had several doctors who weren't very helpful and another Doctor Who was extremely helpful. It depends on many factors as to how the treatment will work or not work. that's why it's very important to get a second and third opinion if you're concerned about what a doctor is telling you. maybe it's a simple case of misunderstanding the doctor and somebody else explains the treatment plan better or maybe the doctor is wrong and somebody else comes up with a better treatment plan.
"Mr. Waldman-"
"- DOCTOR Waldman"
OOOF
He better run that Ph. D.
DOCTOR Biden.
In the UK Health System he would have the title 'Mr' as aspecialist
@@AntonyShannon only surgeons are Mr in the UK
if you think about it, most of the people working in that room have titles.
This is a very helpful judge. More like a moderator lol
That's pretty much a judge. And then after everything, he brings down the hammer.
HHHHHHHHHHHHH. Man, your comment made my day. HHHHHHHHHHH
This is his fucking job.
Judge: "Would you care to elaborate? Or not? Don't feel pressured. Oh, by the way, tea anyone?"
They go way back
this Doctor is a gangsta. he needs to be able to hold the mic so he can drop it!
If by gangsta you mean that he was a horrible expert witness, then yes he was gangsta.
@@ciahammer4843 how can you be certain he is there as an expert witness?
@@georgejamo3562 Cause this is a famous trial. The defendant is Michael Jackson's physician who prescribed him propofol. Dr Waldman was there as defense expert witness.
He's a low life. And there's no shortage of douchebags that think he's so amazing
Agreed, this MD is the most irritating person I’ve ever seen, there’s no reason for him to not answer such simple questions! The lawyer was very patient with him, when he shouldn’t have been. What an ahole
When you go to medical school but went to law school instead.
went in to become a doctor came out a lawyer
What the doctor was saying is if he was able to successfully treat a patient it doesn't mean that prior treatment was bad treatment.
The lawyer didnt say it was, he was asking and it took the doctor a really long time to admit that yes... yes. yes.... some doctors dont always get it right with treatment. Why is that not allowed to be said? Tribalism.
dominionofme learn what subpar and incompetent means before you say the lawyer didnt say prior treatment wasnt bad.
moments after saying high experience is necessary lol
dominionofme he implied it
dominionofme, probably the business or one of the doctors colleagues were being sued. The doctor did not think it was right to do so, so gave the lawyer nothing to work with
The attorney is obviously trying to trap the doctor, but he's not bit ting the bait.
Read the accompanying article. The doctor was identified as being an "expert" witness for an accused criminal defendant. He admitted that he did not have a certification in addition medicine.
i cannot agree with you more. the lawyers are professional liars trying to trap the witness. it is disgusting.
How can you lie while asking questions? He's doing his job by the way.
jimmyfly are you a doctor? Do you know doctors that works at hospital and clinics can work anywhere between 6-72 hours?
jimmyfly that’s funny, how many hours your friend work? On average? A month? A year? A quarter? Are they the same number? So, I bet your friend can’t answer correctly “how many hours do you work?” I have yet to know anyone working in a hospital or clinic anywhere in the North America as medical staff keep a standard regular hours.
When my wife asks if I plan on watching football with my friends this weekend.
"Hey Sweetheart, could you define "watching"? Do you mean watching, like staring at the TV all the time? Or is it more of an occasional look on the screen while still chatting with the guys around me? I am confused there. I rather decline the questions as asked... Could you reword that..."
Bro🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sure honey - I like socializing during some of the times in my life. I think all humans will do well to socialize, I do it sometimes on Mondays, Tuesdays, and sometimes not.
But could you define 'friends', 'weekend' and 'football'?
HHAHAAHAAHAH.
Is this before or after the "what are we having for dinner?" cross examination?
Love how this guy does not feel intimidated by the lawyer, and that he is both confident, comfortable to temain true to his profession whilst giving evidence. I also feel the judge in this trial can see that too ⚖
Interesting observation. My life experience made me understand that doctors who work in drug addiction treatment field are used to deal with liars, manipulators, deceivers, frauds and tricksters of all sorts. And that is why this Doctor is not intimidated by the lawyer, since lawyers, just like most drugs addicts, are pathological liars, tricksters and professional manipulators. If lawyers said the truth they'd end up in "Liar Liar" movie.
Doctor simply treated him like one of his patients.
I was watching this and realized my wife works with him in dialysis. I’ve been listening to stories about him for the past 7 years and they all now make sense.
I don't understand why more people don't just see what's going on here. This doctor is a DEFENSE witness. When the defense was questioning him, there was no animosity, no parsing of statements, no insistence upon "specific" questions. He had no problem whatsoever explaining himself in rather boring detail to any and all defense questions which were, just like with this prosecutor, complex and multi-layered questions requiring complex and multi-layered responses. Now all of a sudden he wants to get his Irish up and do this ridiculous song and dance to avoid answering the prosecutor's questions by insisting on a yes or no format? The judge should have held him in contempt and sent him to County for 30 days just to refresh his memory of how easy it is if a witness simply....TELLS THE TRUTH!!!
@@viking956 The flat truth isn’t always what matters in a courtroom. Of course a defence witness is going to be more guarded when being cross-examined by the prosecution. Because even if the witness or the defence did absolutely nothing wrong, it’s literally the prosecution’s job to trip them up, twist their words, and make it appear as though they did. It’s what they get paid for. They need the win and at the end of the day, that’s what matters.
The Doc is making the attorneys job difficult. I really dislike how lawyers attempt to manipulate witnesses. He is to be admired.
The Dr was evasive till the lawyer forced him to answer
Mel Man just doing his job 🤷🏻♀️
NPC #34008 aka GroupThink Commie The questions were leading and vague. If the Lawyer had asked something like "How many hours a week do you work at the clinic" for example than you can just give a direct answer, like 40 hours or 80 or whatever, but when you ask " how many hours a day do you work in Dialysis", well, that can change dramatically from week to week. One week you might spend the entire week in dialysis, the next you might not spend any. To give a solid definite number opens the door down the road to making you look like you are lying. You see what I am saying here?
Doc is a deceitful bastard. Lawyer is asking simple questions that Doc refuses to answer, until the judge forces an answer.
@@Jndthree 1
Attourney: *Phrases his question as a statement.*
Witness: "I'm sorry, did you need me to say something?"
MrPibb23x pretty much
MrPibb23x nice profile pic.
Exactly!
this is me answering my boss when he asks how many times I left early this year
174 times WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
LOL!
What do you consider early?
My boss asking my how many times a customer dissed me -_-
geno816 “you are putting words in my mouth “ 😂😂
I respect him asking for specific meaning to his questions. When your on the defence your very freedom is on the line, why would you accept a vague line of questioning leading to vague answers that could be twisted to condem you.
He's an expert witness for the defense. Someone else's freedom was on the line, and he hurt his credibility with the jury by arguing over stupid shit. This was day 19 of the Michael Jackson doctor trial, and I'm pretty confident that the jury wouldn't have been pleased with him wasting even more of their time.
Extremely well prepared witness.
except for the fact that he doesn't know his hours.
mrrobvs He knows the hours he works, he’s just not going to allow the prosecutor to be able to determine his competence when it’s not relative to the case. Basically he’s saying “The hours I work have no relevance regarding why I’m here and I’m not going to follow down that rabbit hole”. Saying it like that would probably earn him a contempt charge and he’s not about to entertain prosecutorial fluff and nonsense. The expert witness, with help from a very fair judge, kept the prosecutor on point and within the scope of the case.
Elwood McDougal it’s obvious that not answering the questions serves the agenda of many witnesses in a trial. However, in this case, the actual answer to the question is relevant to the level of competency of the “expert” witness.
@@mrrobvs You are so far wrong you never even heard of Jack Shit let alone know him. The MD degree is all that is needed to establish the doctor's competency. The doctor is a far better judge of the standard of medical care than the attorney.
@@Walker_Bulldog a doctor's level of experience helps to establish his level of competency to serve as an expert witness. This is something this witness actually agrees to in his testimony. However, he is unable to speak to his level of experience in the area of dialysis, and in the area of treating addiction. While your general practicioner might cut off a skin tag every once in a while, your dermatologist might be more competent to serve as an expert in the area of skin tags. This doctor left the jury wondering if he works with significant experience in the fields for which he speaks. A full time practicing Nephrologist would be the correct doctor to serve as an expert with regard to dialysis questioning. Such a doctor would also be able to tell you the hours he worked in the relevant field last week. And doing so would help to solidify his area of expertise. While an "MD Degree" would be a piece of that puzzle, one in an irrelevant area of study would not contribute to competency on the stand. If an "MD Degree" was all it takes for someone to be competent (in any way, shape, or form), then Conrad Murray wouldn't be sitting in the background about to be convicted of manslaughter. A degree is only a piece of the puzzle for competency both in the courtroom and in practice.
"Dr. Waldman, would you like some more water?" "What do you mean, by, 'water'?" "You know, more water, like you have in your cup there." "Sir, you're saying there's water in there." "I just want to know if you want more water!" "I don't pretend to make judgements about my desire for water"...
sparkling, natural, mineral, spring, tap, filtered, or combination..... think he just want more clarity to those 'general' questions
Sometimes half full! Sometimes... not so half full!
More water how much
"Judge, can you ask Dr Waldman to answer the question of whether he would like some more water?"
Judge: "Pf, ask him yourself.....AGAIN."
@@markpaterson2053 yeah
1:25 hes literally drawing a square over and over again lol
Shawn D 😂😂😂😂
LOLLL
i think it's his way of highlighting sections that he's had agreed or needs agreed
Or writing in shorthand.
2monsterhairuglythe
Shorthand writing gives me a headache when I read it.
Five and a half minutes for about ten seconds of direct answers at the very end. Hilarious
The Lawyer: *Starts to ask the witness a question*
Also the Lawyer: why do i hear boss music?
Just giving yes or no answers is how prosecution and defence give the jury incomplete and false ideas of what really occurred. They're trying to win, not establish the truth.
Indeed. This is why the jury based system is so horribly flawed. Twelve people, with no prior legal background or standard of intelligence, decide someone's fate based almost entirely on incomplete, inaccurate, or downright false assertions from the prosecution or defence. It's so horribly flawed that I'm amazed it's still in use after all these years.
@@TheAngrySaxon1 What is a better system? That a system is flawed doesn't mean it isn't still the best system so far.
Isn't that the point of lawers? To lie and manipulate in such a specific way so they can get their client off on a technicality or something ridiculous.
Exactly. That is why its called a court. Games are played on courts. The players are the lawyers playing their games, the fans are the jury, most often very common ignorant people that only comprehend yes or no.
Zenith isnt thats why a judge is there
Doctors stick together, especially colleagues.
Markinpuff like every profession, lawyer are worse.
So then Police should stick together? Those same lawyers stick together? Or maybe politicians stick together? How about bankers? Should Bankers "stick together"? How about we all find a tribe and just... stick together..
The lawyer asked the questions in a rookie way but holy shit the ignorance of this Dr over some questions that are easy to counter or reply to is beyond me.
If doctors stuck together, then there wouldn’t be any medical malpractice lawsuits. No, he’s just not falling for the lawyer’s trap to discredit him as a doctor and getting the lawyer to break his question down to being so basic as to not allow any kind of ambiguity during the cross-examination. The lawyer was getting frustrated and tried getting the judge to make him answer the questions, which clearly didn’t work.
Any person with any sense of responsibility will be able to give a straight forward answer on ball park figures of how many hours a week they work.
That wasn't the question. It started like that, asking if he works 40 hour weeks. Then it changed to how often he works in a specific unit. Doctor's can work all over in a hospital or private clinic. It's not like they have a scheduled rota like other proffessions. As he said, he comes in to work, see's everyone then goes home. That leads to varying shift hours, making it hard to come up with an average on the spot let alone in a specific unit.
I’ve watched this so many times. and yet I still pay it a visit here and there.
They lawyer only has circumstantial reasoning and needs to confirm that, the witness makes a nonsense of such generalised arguments and more importantly destroys their "Bingo ... Bango ... Bongo ..." emotional power (hey jury it's as simple as A leads to be leads to C) ... an act of genus on the part of the witness ... in essence he is saying , prove the specifics of the case and I am going to make you pay for characterization (generalizations) that amount to slurs, in essence you don't have a case because you're making stuff up ...
The reason the witness is being reasonable here is because he is playing defense and every single thing he agrees to or answers yes to, if not specific enough can and will be used against him in every possible way to discredit him. As someone else said they do not do it to establish truth about this witness but to make him 'lose', if it was simply a truth-telling exercise you wouldn't need to act in such a manner.
Yes. This whole exercise is an attempt to discredit him as a witness and have his testimony thrown out
This witness provided extremely poor "expert testimony" and the way that he answered every question that the prosecutor asked him made him less and less reliable and credible.
@Hysteria don’t you mean “unreasonable*”? How do these tards’ comments get likes?
@rats arsed correct, and it never hurts to have one of the best criminal defense lawyers, especially the ones that can stretch a case for a period of 5 years, and obliterate a 15 year minman. 😀
Imagine his response when his wife asks what time he will be home for dinner.
😂
Lmao true!!
@Officer Murphy thank you for your service to the community of Detroit.
He can't quantify that
Really why he didn't come home for dinner.. That would really be the show.
I grew up in a predominately impoverished neighborhood and I can tell you, from lack of education with the advanced English language, it makes me kind of sad to imagine someone without the proper education in the stand with someone like this playing a verbal game of chess against them but it's for their life
And I appreciate the likes even if it was just voicing my opinion fam
My impression is that this is very much an American thing. Been to a couple of trials in Sweden, and there's not much of a chess game going on (well, tbh,not in this vid either, more like hide and seek).
That is why you get the help of a witness advocate/coordinator to help you understand what's going on in the courtroom and how you should respond to questions
you get a lawyer
they dont just throw you up on the stand and hope for the best, christ
What does poverty have to do with anything? Knowledge is free for the taking for those who want it.
That was some serious verbal judo and the Dr was throwing most of the scoring hits!
This doctor is quick though and hes sharp; hes onto the prosecutors game, this is fascinating stuff.
@Martin G ahhh i see gotcha 😂😂😂
@Martin G no it was how many hours does he work doing dialysis work...not how many hours all together. Big difference lol
Martin G it really is like they say. If he answered the question with the exact number or hours, the jury would think they are just a few (as they probably have no experience in the field), and think he is not so expert in the field. The lawyer's objective here is to discredit the witness, and by doing that he would have had a point in his favour.
@@Darninja99 Exactly.
"Okay..." *sigh* "Mr. Waldman..."
DOCTOR WALDMAN...
He is doing it correctly because if the lawyer repeats himself its to catch you in a lie!
What lie in this case?
@@liampitout5483 You shouldn't be in court,, they're going to dismantle you..
you couldnt even catch the lie ?
@@crumcon well no, cause i don’t know what this case is even about
It's clear that doc's been through this shit before. Good job doc!
I wouldn’t have the patience to be a lawyer. I’d start throwing chairs and my parents would have wasted all that money on law school.
😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
AND WE CAN THANK RONALD REAGAN FOR THAT...
Same here lol, I would not be able to deal with this arrogant creep of an MD, like just answer the question
@@cortneyrens arrogant? You like so many people didn't get what the video is showing, this guy is actually answering his questions correctly and not falling into the lawyers tricks, apparently almost everyone is irritated by the Dr when they should learn from him, he destroyed the lawyer
Killer: I will cut your heart out!
Dr. Waldman: I'd be afraid if I had one.
😂😂
What hahahha
Ur great man
I like the Doc , he schooled the lawyer by not stepping into his trap as the line of questioning is deliberate and worded to trap the witness
I would respect a witness more for being as articulate as the Doctor.
Lmao god I pity the idiots that think the doctor won here. Then again, Trump was elected so I am not entirely surprised youtube comments are crawling with morons.
mongo man: best part was when lawyer said why can you answer other lawyer fully but not my questions... pretty pissed lawyer...
those idiots who are trying to discredit the doctor have no clue about the job let alone understand what is being questioned... i guess trumpers...
Except it's trial by judge dumbass, there is no jury
jimmyfly Asking how many hours one worked can be used against them in many ways. Too many hours and they'll say the Physician was fatigued. Too little hours and suddenly the Physician might not be experienced enough or considered a slacker.
These are just some examples how that statement regarding hours can most certainly be used against someone.
The cross-examining attorney was not laying the proper foundation for his questions.
He was also very crappy with asking the questions in very vague ways that the doctor couldn't answer properly.
DR said , sir I never embellish what I do , by denigrating what my colleagues does.
This doctor is on point...he will not get any different answers from him.
when you're smarter than the lawyer
Rich Barber... wasn't I agreeing with you on some totally different video a few days ago?
yep, unfortunately that argument is still going on... it was one of matt christiansens vids
I'm not sure this qualifies as a demonstration of intelligence in the least.
Simple question, simple answer. When you choose to convolute it to high hell, completely unnecessarily, you come out looking more like an ass than a genius....
Rich Barber When you're dumber than a pile of rocks
Sorry buddy, you really don't know what you're talking about in this situation. You don't know what you don't know.
4:25
Prosecutor: Erm Mr. Waldman
Judge: It's Dr. Waldman
Prosecutor: I mean err Dr. Waldman
😂😂😂
Wow I wish this video was 1 hour long , the Doctor is a boss, a gangsta , man he puts John gotti to shame , master at giving just the right info, the lawyer is clearly trying to trip him but the docs on cue !! Love the Doc he should be the lawyer
The part where he says, "Yes you did!"
SPEECH: 100,000
didn't he give up at the end? he basically admitted the the patients received improper care, what was the point at all if any?
3:31 this is his point. lawyer trying to make it look like defendant provides improper care compared to doctor. or something like that, i'm not a lawyer
The prosecutor eventually got exactly the information that he wanted from the doctor, and the doctor came off looking like a jerk.
zelmoziggy this. I'm not so sure where all the wannabe lawyers are going on about in this comment section
This is the embodiment of responding “idk” to everything, even when you know lol
MFulmer456 what do you mean by evidence?
I don't know...😂🤣😂🤣
Does actually no one sees that the lawyer is trying to trick him into answering what he wants and the Dr isnt falling for any bullshit? Are people stupid
@@XxDrJewxX Apparently, yes. Everyone is stupid. I'm pretty shocked at the number of comments that are straight-up bashing the doctor and accusing him of dancing around an issue. The man knows that nuance is important and specificity is paramount if you want a fair legal decision. The judge clearly understood this. When the questions were asked in a manner that would leave no room for misinterpretation he answered them. He was well-spoken, honest, and professional. Do people honestly expect the wild west in a courtroom? This is why our justice system is fucked.
@@NotSoSerious69420 this is very non specific evidence define this…lol
The lawyer is asking gotcha questions by framing it in his way that can entrap the doctor. This is why I think our laws are flawed in a sense.
jkutnink87 what does cross examination have to do with laws?
TheVesylum what laws are flawed Mr expert?
the laws with -yers attached
@@TheVesylum those questions he asked were entrapment questions. It is why the judge had him reword the last question.
Ray Stimphil your comment had me rolling.
Did you work more than 10 hours last week?
Yes.
Did you work more than 200 hours last week?
No.
Great, we have a range. Now let's narrow that down.
That’s a game this doctor is not gonna play
I worked in addiction treatment myself. My patients may have had the very best in prior care for all I know, and still relapsed. It doesn't mean the staff at the prior facility did a bad job. Some addicts just aren't ready to get better. Treatment isn't a magic cure; patients need to do further work after rehab.
agreed. you can give people as much treatment as you want. if they dont have the heart in it and the will to see it through, no treatment plan in the world can cure you.
Thats not to say that it wasnt bad either. There are many predatory treatment facilities, including cliffside malibu.
that strikes me as a baseless slur on a specific institution. Unless of course you are able to corroborate it.
Brian Kessler yeah some alot of addicts just aint ready to give it up.some people go thru with it,most always go back to it
My addiction was to cigarettes. Nothing like as bad as alcohol, gambling hard drugs, but the one thing I can say from experience is until you deep down decide you want to quit no amount of outside help will do the job.
that objection was the most badass thing i’ve seen in my life
i know right, doesn't even look up to say it
So... Retreated from getting the shit beat out of you is a badass thing? Since when or what reality does that qualify as badass?
drsatanrx Dude what are you like 12 years old ? Everyone has different perceptions and definitions, who are you to say that it’s not badass ? And to write a comment just to say that ? You really are petty or a child ... possibly both. Grow up mister.
@@drsatanrx your comment isn't very badass
@@foxtrotmetal01 having a different definition of badass doesnt mean you are correct. It means your low set standards are pathetic
I get such a Jordan Schlansky vibe from this guy
Jordan: Ralph "Match-io", family name, is actually Italian in origin, so it would actually be pronounced, uh, Ralph, "Ma-ck-io", this is in part due to the pronunciation of the repeated, or double "c", macc, would likely be "MACK", not "Match". Incidentally, this is a regional pronunciation likely due to the hardened tongue of the southern half of Europe, which, predominately, is where Italy is located so if we analyze the...
Ralph: It's "Match-io" though.
Jordan: Well you're wrong.
He could be his father!
Lol so did I. He works various hours and has various duties while doing various doctor related duties.
"a cross-examination is, in essence, putting words in your mouth, which you could either accept or rejec...." "I reject!"