- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Fifth Circuit has Harsh Words for Mark Lanier
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:27 pm
Searched and did not see. SIAP.
LINK
LINK
quote:
The 5th Circuit panel – Judges Jerry Smith, Rhesa Barksdale and Stephen Higginson – reamed Lanier repeatedly and by name, accusing him of inflammatory tactics and outright deception. Lanier ran afoul of the Rules of Civil Procedure at least twice in his closing arguments, the 5th Circuit said. The appeals court said those violations, on their own, would have warranted a new trial. But that’s not all the famed trial lawyer did wrong, according to Judge Smith’s outrage-fueled opinion.
quote:
Lanier told jurors several times that two key medical witnesses for his side were unpaid, drawing a contrast with DePuy’s expert witnesses. But Lanier’s witnesses, in fact, had either received or expected to receive compensation. Lanier had “manufactured” a “false” choice for jurors between his side’s unpaid experts and the other side’s hired guns, the 5th Circuit said.
quote:
In another spot, the 5th Circuit referred to plaintiffs’ lawyers as “Lanier and crew.” That’s not phraseology you will often see from a appeals court describing a team of lawyers.
8
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:31 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
Lanier told jurors several times that two key medical witnesses for his side were unpaid, drawing a contrast with DePuy’s expert witnesses. But Lanier’s witnesses, in fact, had either received or expected to receive compensation.
Seems any halfway decent defense attorney would have made sure to establish this for the jury on cross of those experts at trial.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:32 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm is one of the most successful trial lawyers in the country. Trained as a pastor, he has an uncanny rapport with jurors, who have bestowed upon him enormous verdicts: $253 million against Merck in a 2005 Vioxx trial; $6 billion (yes, billion) against Takeda in a 2014 trial over the diabetes drug Actos; $502 million against Johnson & Johnson and DePuy in a 2016 trial over metal-on-metal hip implants.
Could you not have included this?
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:33 pm to JudgeHolden
Damn. I was in 19th JDC when a Judge asked a plaintiff's lawyer to have one of his expert witnesses come back in the court room after they had rested and before the Defense began. The lawyer said the witness had already left and the Judge asked the lawyer to pass along a message. The Judge said "tell him I better never see him in my court room again." The Judge then delivered a Directed Verdict and chewed the ever living shite out of the Plaintiff's lawyers arse. It was almost uncomfortable. The crux of it all was that they had a Pre-Trial Conference six weeks earlier in which the Judge had pointed out several fatal flaws in the Plaintiff's case and advised the attorney to remedy them prior to trial. Guy apparently showed up and laid out the exact same case they had discussed at the Pre-Trial. Judge was livid.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:34 pm to Slagathor
quote:
Could you not have included this?
Sure. Could also have added that most of those got reversed on appeal.
Lanier is an outstanding trial lawyer. There's no doubt about that.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:35 pm to JudgeHolden
Don’t even know who this a-hole is, but Wikipedia has a huge forward on his bio saying “This may be the result of a payoff. We need someone to clean this up.”
Not a good sign.
Not a good sign.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:35 pm to jbgleason
Judge Daniel?
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:35 pm to jbgleason
quote:
when a Judge
Duke?
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:39 pm to NIH
quote:
Judge Daniel?
How did you know that?
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:40 pm to jbgleason
Heard that same exact story 
Posted on 5/3/18 at 2:45 pm to NIH
Not a word of the story is exaggerated.
The "Expert", who was a Chiropractor, kept trying
to give testimony about "rotational forces" involved in a car accident. (Kicker was that it was a rear end collision without any rotation at all.) The Judge kept cutting him off to remind him that he was qualified to give medical testimony and not to testify about vehicle dynamics. The guy would literally start again as soon as the Judge finished admonishing him. He testified for about thirty or forty minutes and then on Cross it was determined that the injuries he had been testifying on were pre-existing sports injuries (he had been the doctor who treated them) and NOT injuries from the wreck that was the subject of the lawsuit. I thought the Judge was going to come down off the Bench and deck the guy. Things were pretty much over at that point.
The "Expert", who was a Chiropractor, kept trying
to give testimony about "rotational forces" involved in a car accident. (Kicker was that it was a rear end collision without any rotation at all.) The Judge kept cutting him off to remind him that he was qualified to give medical testimony and not to testify about vehicle dynamics. The guy would literally start again as soon as the Judge finished admonishing him. He testified for about thirty or forty minutes and then on Cross it was determined that the injuries he had been testifying on were pre-existing sports injuries (he had been the doctor who treated them) and NOT injuries from the wreck that was the subject of the lawsuit. I thought the Judge was going to come down off the Bench and deck the guy. Things were pretty much over at that point.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 3:03 pm to jbgleason
Actually it's a chiropractors job to be a physics expert and a spine expert
Posted on 5/3/18 at 3:11 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
Actually it's a chiropractors job to be a physics expert and a spine expert
LoL. Not when you are testifying as to the physics of an automobile accident and certainly not when the Judge tells you four or five times not to testify on that subject. He could say that an injury is a result of a type of force but, unless he is qualified as an expert on vehicle dynamics, he can’t attribute the injury and those type of forces to the accident.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 3:26 pm to jbgleason
Lots of chiropractors go to college where they make you take physics
Posted on 5/3/18 at 3:48 pm to el Gaucho
It amazes me that you can still get people to bite.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 3:49 pm to JudgeHolden
Mark Lanier = Alpha
Posted on 5/3/18 at 4:27 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
Actually it's a chiropractors job to be a physics expert and a spine expert
Ho-Lee-Shat....you are one dumb mother fricker if you believe that!
I have been in an OR where one of these so called “experts” had snapped a man’s back.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 5:24 pm to ABearsFanNMS
Well yeah but if that guy had gone into a chiropractor sooner it wouldn't have required so much force to fix him
Posted on 5/3/18 at 6:20 pm to JudgeHolden
Mark Lanier vs Tony Clayton. Who you got? I’ll take Tony, he’s absolutely lethal picking a jury.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News