It's a medical malpractice case.
You sued your doctor.
He was careless and caused you significant harm.
Your doctor says he did nothing wrong.
He also says you contributed to your own injuries.
He also says your injuries are not as bad as you claim.
Your medical expert says your doctor is lying.
He says there's no possible way.
You believe you have a strong case.
The defense refuses to negotiate.
That means you'll go to trial.
That means a jury will decide if you are more likely right than wrong.
A jury will reach a verdict on your case.
During trial your doctor lied on the witness stand.
During trial your doctor contradicted a few things he said years earlier during his pretrial testimony.
Those inconsistencies were highlighted.
Your doctor tried to explain those away.
"I must have forgot that one..."
"I didn't remember saying that..."
"I didn't say that..."
Then, your doctor changed his testimony.
You swore on the witness stand what your doctor said to you.
It was the absolute truth.
You remember it as if it were yesterday.
Your doctor denies he said that.
He said "I'd never have said that to a patient."
A clear contradiction.
The doctor lied multiple times.
You don't believe him.
Your attorney doesn't believe him.
You think the jury doesn't believe him.
Can your attorney call your doctor a liar?
Sure he could.
Would he gain any points for doing so?
Maybe.
Maybe he doesn't have to resort to call him names.
Maybe the jury alreay knows this.
Maybe calling him a liar would be over-the-top obvious.
It might be 'beating a dead horse'.
That's a simple phrase for showing that you've made your point, now move on.
You may want your attorney to hammer home the idea that your doctor lied under oath.
You may want your lawyer to repeatedly show the jury that your doctor is a liar.
That may overdo it.
Then again, it may not.
The jury might appreciate someone finally saying it in the open.
The jury might be thinking what everyone else in the courtroom is thinking but nobody has mentioned.
An attorney walks a fine line when deciding whether to call an educated doctor a liar.
The facts have to fit.
The testimony has to fit.
The emotions have to fit.
The tension in the courtroom has to fit.
It's a tactical decision.
Sometimes it's a decision made on the fly.
It just feels right.
Other times it doesn't.
You can't have a one-size-fits all rule for this lying situation.
Remember when Donald Trump during the campaign kept calling Ted Cruz 'Lying Ted'?
Remember when Trump kept calling Hillary 'Crooked Hillary'?
Everyone was astounded when he did this.
Then, after a while, a remarkable thing happened.
People started remembering his slogans.
They were nasty slogans.
Antagonistic slogans.
Hurtful slogans.
But in his case, they stuck.
An attorney might get the idea that the same thing would apply.
Maybe it would.
Then again, maybe it won't.
If you have exposed your doctor's lies and his inconsistencies and the mood is right, then maybe it would be appropriate to call your doctor a liar.
On the other hand, it's often better to let the jury reach their own conclusions.
Your lawyer just helps them along with the obvious.
A jury's work is much more rewarding and powerful when you point out all the discrepancies and show them there's only one conclusion they can reach.
What do you think?
Should an attorney call your doctor a liar?
To learn more about a witness lying at trial, I invite you to watch the quick video below...
