1. Why do you think the jury found in favor of Frank? Given what you have seen in the film, would you have found for him—or gone with Concannon?
2. To the disappointment of some of you, the settlement is never stated—how much money they want the hospital to pay Doneghys. What do you think would have been a fair and just settlement? And why?
3. You're accused of murder: do you hire the Frank Galvin we see win the case or the super duper team of Ed Concannon? Why?
4. Finally: what question(s) would you want to ask Mike Jacobs, who will talk with us on Thursday, based on your viewing of The Verdict?
Here's a positive review of the film. I would agree it's slow; I also think it's slowness is essential for us to really live in the world of Frank Galvin, who sees how much he has ruined his life through self-pity and alcohol. He's not at all perfect as a man nor as a laywer; that's what makes him interesting—at least to me.
Finally: lovable Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci)...not so lovable.
I think the jury found in favor of Frank based on his closing argument and the testimony of the nurse. While Frank’s closing argument was not very fact based or didn’t prove anything, it basically told the jurors to do what they thought was right despite what they had been shown and told by the defense. Even though the testimony of the nurse was not supposed to be used as a part of the jurors conclusion, it is impossible to unhear something, and I think that testimony was a main reason the jury found in favor of Frank. If I was on jury duty for this case, I would have gone with Frank because there was obviously something that was mishandled and then covered up.
ReplyDeleteI think a fair settlement would have been 500,000 dollars, and for the doctor to lose his medical license. I think the doctor should have to pay this much because he ruined the lives of many people and put a women in a coma. I do not think it would have been unfair for the doctor to be put in prison, because his mishandling of the situation resulted in a young women getting severe brain damage and being in a coma.
If I were to be tried for murder, I would choose the super team of Ed Concannon. I would choose him because he is more experienced, has a better record of winning cases, and is willing to put lots of time, effort and money into defending his clients.
I would like to ask Mike if he thought it was accurate that Ed Concannon would hire his daughter to spy on Frank in order to help win the case?
1. Why do you think the jury found in favor of Frank? Given what you have seen in the film, would you have found for him—or gone with Concannon?
ReplyDeleteThe nurse presented a statement proving the doctors were in the wrong. The extremely biased judge asking them to wipe it from their brains is not realistic. They still heard it, and it proved to be a game changer for them. I would agree with the jury. Frank presented an undeniably good argument as to why the doctors were guilty, and it’s only fair to side with him.
2. To the disappointment of some of you, the settlement is never stated—how much money they want the hospital to pay Doneghys. What do you think would have been a fair and just settlement? And why?
I think a fair settlement would be one million dollars. If the doctors were simply in a rush and screwed up, it would be less than that. However, they abused their power and asked the nurse to change the records. That is grounds for losing their job. I understand how hard it is to be a doctor, and it they would have owned up to their mistake, there may not have even been a trials
3. You're accused of murder: do you hire the Frank Galvin we see win the case or the super duper team of Ed Concannon? Why?
I would hire Ed Concannon’s team because they have a history of winning cases. One lost case doesn’t discredit them. They lost because Frank had information they didn’t. In addition, winning one case does not make Frank a good lawyer. He lost all his previous cases in the last 4 years and is still a very flawed man.
4. Finally: what question(s) would you want to ask Mike Jacobs, who will talk with us on Thursday, based on your viewing of The Verdict?
What could Frank have done after seeing how the judge was clearly biased? Does this movie make being a lawyer seem worse than it actually is? Is hiring someone to spy on the other team realistic? Who do you personally think the better lawyer was?
1. I think the jury didnt forget the Nurse’s testimony, especially after Galvin’s closing speech. They knew that in the end they needed to do something right, and it was obvious that something was amiss with Concannon. Every day, there was different lawyers with him, and as a juror that would have weirded me out. It was obvious that the archdiocese was covering something up, and as a juror i would have gone with the plaintiff.
ReplyDelete2. Personally, the first thing that would happen is that the doctor would lose his medical license. In my opinion, I would have pressed charges for criminal negligence, given that he killed someone. As far as a civil settlement goes, I’d put it at 1,500,000. Without a mom in the house, the doneghy children lose someone to take care of them and a breadwinner gone, they need some way to support them until they’re adults.
3. If I was tried for murder, I wouldn’t choose either attorney. They’re civil attorneys, and they don’t practice criminal law. I’d rather hire a real defense attorney, say, for example, Dan.
4. I’d ask Mike if the judge is allowed to question witnesses and draw a conclusion that supports one side, or if they’re required to be completely impartial.
1 Even though the information that the nurse revealed at her testimony was supposed to be ignored by the jury, I definitely still thought they took that into account. You can’t just forget something after it is told. Why else would they vote in favor of Frank? He had no argument or evidence whatsoever. I understand that Concannon did meddle with the trial quite a bit, but not all of his meddling was revealed to the jurors. If I was a juror for this case that knew nothing of Concannon’s meddling, I probably would side with Concannon because Concannon had strong evidence and witnesses that proved his argument.
ReplyDelete2. I would say they should pay twice the amount they offered, so $420,000. These doctors did cause a healthy young woman to lose her life, and it was completely their fault and could have been avoided if they had paid closer attention. While I believe that the doctors should be put in jail for changing the document after the patient died, I know that wouldn’t be possible after what happened in court and how the nurse and the document were forced to be ignored by the jury.
3. I would hire Ed Concannon! I understand that he did meddle with the trial in favor of his client, but I would rather have Concannon break some rules and keep me out of jail then hire Frank and risk spending tons of time in jail. Also Concannon had a team of lawyers, and so many minds were working together and more ideas could have been created with a team of 20 rather than just Frank and his friend. Also you can’t forget the fact that Frank is an alcoholic and gave up on the case before it even started!! Even though Frank has good intentions, it would be too risky to hire him over Concannon. The fact that Frank won the case was truly a miracle, and he seemed surprised himself when the jury reached their conclusion.
4. If I were to ask Mike Jacobs a question based on my viewing of The Verdict, I might ask “is a judge allowed to ask a directed question and reach a conclusion towards one side but not towards the other? Is that fair?”
I believe the jury took Frank’s side because of the nurse’s testimony, despite its being “stricken from the record” and demanded erased from their memory. It is impossible to absorb believable information from a credible witness and then be asked to not allow it to impact the decision making process in any way. Each member of the jury an not un-hear a testimony that prompted their final opinion of the case.
ReplyDeleteI think a fair settlement would be at least one million dollars. Not only did the doctors completely abuse their positions and lie about it by telling the nurse to change the records, but they also are responsible for one life lost and a few forever changed. Had Frank retrieved their settlement when first offered it, it would make sense for it to be a lesser sum, however the couple suffered mental and emotional exhaustion as the case dragged out and felt the risk of getting no settlement at all throughout the entire process.
I would hire the team of Ed Concannon because Concannon is much more reliable with his long history of winning cases. Frank Galvin is completely unstable, undependable, and reckless. His one victory can be completely credited to the nurse who won over the jury for Frank.
What mistakes can doctors make and not be punished versus punished? (What constitutes a punishable mistake/malpractice?)
What factors go into deciding a fair settlement?
I think the nurse’s testimony caused the jury to favor Frank. Even though her testimony along with the evidence was supposed to be thrown out, it had already been seen and presented, and it’s impossible to forget that. Chances are, the jury had already made their decisions about the verdict, and even though they were supposed to forget about it, their decision had already been made. If I was a member of the jury on this case, I would have gone with Franks side. Everything the nurse said and showed pointed to corruption of the doctor, and I wouldn’t have been able to forget that.
ReplyDeleteI think that it’s really hard to put an exact number on the amount that the hospital should give them because it’s extremely different to figure out the monetary worth of someone who died. On top of that, the family suffered emotional distress, and I don’t exactly know how you produce a number to make up for something like that. The total, however, would definitely have to be substantially more than the initial $210,000. The sum would also have to be enough to cover for the money that the woman would have been making before she was killed.
I think I would have to go with Concannon. Even though some of his methods were not moral or just, Frank lost all four of his past cases, with the exception of this one, but I don’t think he could pull off something like this again. Con cannon just seems like a safer option, especially if my case is tried by that judge, who was said to favor the defendants. Also, Concannon has many more people and resources behind him to help him prove his cases.
I’m curious to know what the limits of a judge are when it comes to directly talking and question witnesses, and at what point in doing that are they no longer considered impartial. Also, if the court found out about Concannon meddling in the case and having a spy in a way, would he be punished at all, and if so what would happen?
I think that the jury took franks side because of the nurse’s testimony. She was very convincing and even though the jury didn’t allow it, they still heard it. Frank also said something in his final testimony, saying how only god will know and I feel like that surrendering everything to god proving that they are right.
ReplyDeleteI think that they were given 500,000 or even double that. They made 210,000 seem like too little of an amount so I believe it’s up there in the 500,000s. I believe it’s just because it’s a loss of a loved one. That is hard to be replaced
I would hire cocannon because he almost got away with the case. The only reason why frank won was because of the nurse and her truth. He wouldn’t have won if he was defending the murderer. He didn’t do anything to convince the jury. The only person who convinced them was the nurse
My question to the lawyer who’s coming in would simply just be the 3rd question. I wonder if he thinks that’s franks a good lawyer. I want to know who he’d hire if he was accused for murder
The jury found in favor of Frank for many obvious reasons. The biggest one being the nurses testimony. After hearing her speak, even one of the defendants said that he believed her. Her speech was supposed to be disregarded but it was obvious that she was telling the truth and there is no way that the jury could ignore her emotional statement. I think the fact that it was ordered to be ignored might have even helped Franks Case because it seemed very unfair. In addition to this Frank seemed very genuine in all of his statements especially his closing one. I think he had already won, but this had to have helped his case. Con canon also seemed very sketchy and incensere which surely helped.
ReplyDeleteWhen i was watching the end of the movie i thought that a good amount of money would be 1 million dollars. Obviously there is no possible way to compensate a death but what is important is bringing the doctors to justice for not only the death of the girl but the efforts to cover it up. Obviously they should be fired.
I would go for frank any day. No mater ho awful Frank was, concannon could get me in a lot more trouble because of his sketchy dealings. Frank suspected that he payed off his witness, which is witness tampering and highly illegal. He also uses spies to gather information. Also when we see frank in court he is highly capable of presenting a case. If i was guilty of the crime however i would probably go with con cannon because i think he would be better at covering it up.
I want to know how o prove a judge isn't being impartial. Is it a judgement call or is there some kind of procedure. Also is what frank said he would do possible to do?
this is evan
Delete1. In my opinion, the jury sided with Frank because of the evidence provided. Though the jury was told to neglect the evidence given about Kaitlyn Castillo’s testimony, they couldn’t simply remove it from their minds. Furthermore, I believe that the jury knew in their heart of hearts that the doctors had made a mistake. Kaitlyn’s emotion and desperation shown on the stand are things that are very difficult to fake. Lastly, there was the judge’s bias which was apparent to everyone in the courtroom. He clearly favored the doctors over Frank. This of course was obvious to the jury and led them to side with Frank as they should’ve.
ReplyDelete2. I feel as though $550,000-$600,000 would be best suited. Why? Well, not only did this woman lose her sister, but she was also repeatedly lied to by the hospital. This woman’s sister will be a vegetable for the rest of her life. She is brain-dead, and there is no coming back from that. They took away her life. Furthermore, they tried to cover it up and lie in public. They knew what they did but refused to own up to it. All this couple wanted was enough money to get away. Thankfully, now they have that.
3. While Frank won the case, I would still go with Concannon. Is he a good person? No. Would he win my case? Most likely. I say this because he’s experienced, more so than Frank. While his morals suck, he would do everything that he could to win my case. He wouldn’t do this to necessarily for me, but to say that he won. Though that is a bad reason, I’d win regardless. Furthermore, he has a whole team of people working to make sure that this case goes our way. I like my odds better with Concannon.
4. I’d want to know the following:
- In your opinion, is Frank a good lawyer?
- Do you encounter guys like Concannon? If so, how often?
- How corrupt is the legal world really?
I think that no matter what you say, the jury will never be able to strike certain aspects of a case from their memory. It really hurt Concannon's case that the information/idea of the nurse having another accurate copy of the document was out there. If i was on the jury, I would have to award the money to Frank's clients, just off of the nurses testimony alone. I am not sure how much I would award to the people, but it would have to be enough to cover all future medical bills that they will receive because of the wrongful way that these doctors acted. I would also want enough money to move the woman into a better care facility, given that where she is now is very low quality. I would not hire either. Concannon is not a very nice person, and in the courtroom he had trouble dealing with things that came up that he was not expecting. Although Frank worked really hard at the end, I would not trust him to put the time in to help me out of trouble. I wonder how accurate it is that these lawyers are treated/treat these judges the way that they do.
ReplyDelete1. I think that the Jury found in favor of Frank because of the nurses testimony. Although the judge told the jury to erase her testimony from their mind, naturally I don’t think they could. Her testimony clearly proved that the doctor was negligent. I think that if they would have done what the judge demanded, and ignored the nurses testimony, that that would have been doing something morally wrong. It would have enabled a negligent doctor to not only get away with their crime, but possibly hurt more people based on a technicality. If I were on the Jury, I definitely would have ruled in favor of Frank because after hearing the nurses testimony, it was very clear that the doctors needed to be punished and the family of the victim compensated.
ReplyDelete2. I’m not sure exactly how much the settlement should have been, but I do believe that it should have been substantially larger than the original amount. I also believable that the doctors should never be allowed to practice medicine again. Not only was a life ended and destroyed due to the doctors negligent behavior, but he also threatened to fire the nurse and make sure she never worked again if she didn’t lie. Many people deserve justice in this scenario—the victim, the victims family, the nurse, and all other patients that may have suffered from his negligence.
3. If I were being accused of murder, I would choose the super duper team of Ed Concannon to represent me over Frank. The team had a much better record, and I would feel more comfortable relying on a team all working to prove my innocence than a single person.
4. Question for Thursday—is it realistic that there would be spying or corruption involved with this case? Is there a way for the defense to try to discover if somebody voted to convict based on testimony that was supposed to be ignored—if they found out jurors used a testimony that was supposed to be ignored, what would happen?
I think the jury was in favor of Frank because of the testimony of Caitlin Costello-Price. I know that this testimony was supposed to be disregarded, but it is hard to do so when the testimony given by her is so believable and clearly points to malpractice at the hospital. I would have voted for Frank because it was easy to tell that Concannon was trying to hide the malpractice that obviously occurred and ruined a woman’s life. The fact that the doctor made Price change the number on the sheet and that he did nothing to deny that in court was enough for me to be in favor of Frank.
ReplyDeleteI think a fair and just settlement would be $1,200,000. Frank would get $400,000, which is a pretty substantial amount compared to the original $70,000, and the Doneghy’s would get $800,000. Personally, I believe that no amount of money can make up for the coma that the victim is in (and won’t ever get out of?). Malpractice, especially in this case where the doctor did not bother to check when she had eaten and then covered for himself after he realized he made a gigantic mistake, is terrible and the family should get a large sum of money because of it. Furthermore, the doctor’s medical license should be withdrawn.
I would absolutely not hire Frank Galvin because he nearly lost the case and he went against the wishes of his clients. I would hire Ed Concannon and his team because the more people, the better. Also, Concannon had some very good arguments and he seemed to know the rules of the law extremely well, so he was able to object to Caitlin Price’s testimony. He was well prepared and well spoken, therefore I would have him as my lawyer.
My questions are: Are judges like the judge is the movie, who have a preference towards one side, very common? How much money do you think is appropriate for the Doneghys to receive? Have you ever had a case where your key witness is not as qualified as you think they are? Do you think this movie is realistic?
The jury found in favor of Galvin because of Price's testimony. There's no way to actually strike the statement from the jurors' memory, and it was Galvin's only solid piece of evidence/basis of his case. I believe in this instance, I would've come to the same conclusion as the jury, and found in favor of the defense.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I wished that we heard the settlement amount, the movie left that up to us to decide. I figured that it was significantly more than the 600k that Galvin was asking for. I think a proper and fair settlement would be at least double, if not more, than what was originally asked for. Hearing Price speak about the doctors blackmailing her, and forcing her out of her dream career was enough to have me emotional at school on a tuesday, so I can't imagine being in the courtroom. Without knowing Galvin's commision rate or anything, I would petition for 1.5 million probably, the archdiocese of Boston could deifinetly afford it, so I wouldn't feel bad making them pay a lot of money.
As much as it pains me to say it, I would hire Concannon's team of expert lawyers with crazy connections to the city. As honorable as Frank's singular case was, his bedside manner and reputation is not as trustworthy as Concannon. I would feel much safer with Concannon on my side, seeing as the only time he got rattled was when Galvin did something illegal (that I know because of My Cousin Vinny), which was bringing in a surprise witness who delivered a testimony outside the scope of the direct. That is something else that would make me steer clear of Galvin, as in that moment, it seemed like he barely knew the rules of the trial. Concannon returned minutes later with a well-crafted and expert objection and rightfully got Price's testimony stricken from the record (how effective that was after the jury already heard her, I do not know).
I want to ask Mike how Galvin would go about filing for mistrial, and if he had enough ground to do so. Was he just a terrible lawyer, or was the judge partial to the defense?
I think the jury voted in favor of Frank because though the surprise witness’ testament was struck from the record, it wasn't struck from the jurors minds. Nurse Costello’s words were extremely persuasive and her emotion and conviction, and her side of the story was in the realm of possibility, in that it was believable and could happen. I definitely would have voted in favor of the prosecution, given I know what I know and had been following the plot of the movie the whole time.
ReplyDeleteI think that one million would be the bare minimum of the settlement, not only because the hospital can afford it, but because of the ethical implications that the hospital was involved with. The trusted doctors lied, tried to make a fool of Frank and the family he was defending, killed a baby, and ended the life of an innocent woman. I think that one million even isn't enough to even begin to bother the reparations needed to offset their actions.
I think I would still hire the team of Ed Concannon because Frank is still lacking in material and support. The only reason why he won the case is because of Costello's testimony. Just evaluating skill and expertise of the lawyer, I think Ed is the better choice for me.
I would like to ask about the bias of the judge- is that allowed? If it is, how is that ethical? Couldn't Frank call for a mistrial?
I think the jury found in favor of Frank because of the accurate facts and evidence that the nurse reveals during her testimony. In addition, Concannon attempting to conceal the evidence could have caused him to lose credibility in the eyes of the jury. Despite the fact that I found Frank to be a bad lawyer, I would have found in favor of him for the same reasons that I believe the jury favored him.
ReplyDeleteI can’t think of an exact number, but definitely more than the original settlement of $210,000. Money can’t replace the damage that has been done, yet I believe that the Doneghys should be compensated for all the economic loss that they have experienced. They should receive a quantity that will financially secure the family and allow for medical expenses to be paid off. The family was tied due to the sister’s situation, thus, I think the family should be given a quantity that will not only cover their previous and current expenses, but also for the lost opportunities that they were unable to have as a result of their hands being tied (for example, they were unable to leave town if I recall correctly).
I would not like to have to choose between the two, but if there was no other option, I would go with Concannon’s team because of how they prepare (intensely) for their cases. I choose Concannon’s team over Frank because Frank is unreliable, unprepared, and his alcohol abuse gets in the way of him to think clearly. As seen in the film, he is unable to secure a witness until the end, does not communicate with his clients, and depends on his “emotional” closing speech to convince the jury (setting aside the facts given by the nurse who testified).
Do you personally know of any lawyers that resemble Frank Galvin? Which lawyer would you hire to represent you in a murder case?