Trial War Stories - Credibility, Clarity and Lawyering

Defending the Medicine: How to Win When the Case Looks Impossible

When the plaintiff’s injuries are catastrophic, how do you stop the jury from equating tragedy with malpractice? In this episode of Trial War Stories with Andy Goldwasser, we dive into one of the most dramatic medical malpractice defense cases ever tried.

Join me, my dad (renowned trial lawyer Gary Goldwasser), and top medical malpractice attorney Marilena DiSilvio as we break down:
✅ How to build jury credibility before cross-examining a sympathetic plaintiff
✅ Why focusing on the medicine and science can win over emotion
✅ The real story of flying to Kuwait to record a doctor’s testimony for trial
✅ Mistakes the plaintiff’s lawyer made that turned the case around
✅ The importance of simplifying complex medical evidence for juries
✅ Lessons on trial strategy, storytelling, and courtroom presence

This is a must-watch for trial lawyers, law students, and anyone fascinated by courtroom strategy, jury psychology, and high-stakes litigation.

🎧 Watch now and subscribe for more insider tips, trial tactics, and behind-the-scenes war stories that teach you how to try (and win) tough cases.

#TrialWarStories #MedicalMalpracticeDefense #CourtroomDrama #TrialLawyerTips #JuryTrial #LitigationStrategy #LegalPodcast #AndyGoldwasser #LawyerLife #TrialTactics #StorytellingInCourt

Transcript

0:00

How do you keep the jury from equating tragedy with malpractice? How do you overcome the weight in a courtroom of horrific, visible injuries? You do it through skill. You do it, you clarity. You do it through simplicity, and you do it through great lawyering. Every trial lawyer has that one case. The one that pushed them to the edge, changed how they practice or kept them up at night. This is trial war stories. And I'm your host, Andy Goldwasser. I sit down with great trial lawyers to unpack unforgettable cases the strategy, the chaos, the pressure, and the moments that turn the tide beyond the transcripts and verdicts. And now to the show. All right. Well, hey, I am really excited to be here with two of my favorite people. One, I have to say that for sure. And let me start with a little introduction. We have a special guest today. We have my dad, my hero, my mentor. I grew up in a family that consisted of my mother, who's overly dramatic, and my father, who, let's just call him straight laced. And it created an interesting combination. When we would have dinner, I'd either get all this emotion from mom or complete cross-examination from you, dad. But, in all seriousness, you were a great, great lawyer. You're now retired. You were with Raymond Jr for years, running the medical, running the medical malpractice department over there, and just a prolific, great trial lawyer. And we're going to talk about one of your fun cases today. Next have we have my dear friend Marlena, who I have known forever, who's just had a really cool trajectory. I think you started out actually as a nurse, right? Correct. And then you went with Eric Kennedy's firm and was working in plaintiff's work, then defense work at Raymond Jr with my dad. Best mentor ever. I agree. And then after that, you're now doing plaintiff work again. Correct. All right, well, I can't wait to dig in and talk and really, you are truly. I mean, this one of the best persons that people I know, but the best medical malpractice lawyers I've ever met. I mean, you are absolutely phenomenal. And you have that reputation, and it's just it's great to sit down with you today. Thank you. Andy. So I wanted to talk to you about a really interesting trial that we had. Dad, during your heyday, during your prime, sort of at the end, I guess, the end of your prime, where Marlena was involved and the two of you were trial partners. Tell us about the case. Wow. Well, first, I could not have tried this case without Marlena, so we'll start there. What happened is that I received an assignment from a medical malpractice insurance carrier. And as we lawyers do, I get the assignment in the mail, and I look through and see what it's about. And I am sort of that perplexed and shocked and anxious as soon as I read the file. Because the plaintiff is an African American mother who has lost both her arms and her legs to a disease called meningeal Casimir, which is a blood bacterial disease which attacks the blood vessels of the body. And her first attacks the extremities. If it's not treated properly, it's an emergency situation. So here we get this case in, and we are to defend a medical malpractice lawsuit involving a plaintiff with no arms and no legs. I can't imagine, you know, we deal with catastrophic injuries when we get more experienced in what we do, but not only have a catastrophic injury, but one that's so visible and so emotional, so visceral for the trial, for a jury, that has to be something that is difficult to deal with, not just emotionally, but then also how to present that. So please tell us a little bit more about the case. That's exactly right. So, the parties included the the hospital and some for the two physicians, as I recall, one of the physicians was our client, and our client was the emergency room physician who was the first medical provider to see the patient. When she arrived at the hospital's emergency room. So, first thing I had to do is learn about the medicine as we do. I'm not a physician. So I read about the medicine, and I said, oh, my gosh, this is really a very serious, rare occurrence for some person who developed respect arterial infection. So I looked into the file, tried to meet our client, the emergency room physician, only to discover that he had left the United States of America to return to his home country of Kuwait. Oh, no. So now we have to defend this lawsuit with a client is no longer readily available. Oh my goodness. So that led to quite a dilemma. Well, so now to move forward, of course we did our discovery and all that stuff. Well before you get there though, so you get this file and you do the initial analysis. Do you. I mean, do you get a team together? Do you do this to yourself? How do you decide who's going to assist you? If anyone with the case. Well, I was blessed to be able to have a team available. And the person that I chose to work with me was Marielena. And, I mean, we're not here to be, you know, accolades and all of us sitting in this room. But frankly, Marielena, in my opinion, was the most, The most skilled, the most socially adaptable person to deal with this. Besides that, I wanted a a female lawyer to help me because I'm dealing with a woman who's got children. And I thought, if we have to go in front of a jury, this would have more appeal. Besides that, I've seen Maryland. I've worked with her in the past, and she was extremely gracious and aggressive without being obnoxious and in front of a jury, which is a real talent because you could be aggressive that totally turn the jury off Maryland and never exhibited that trait to me. So it was fortuitous that I asked her to join me to try this case. This is a lawsuit that is very difficult to defend without someone helping some of it. I must confess that my memory is that, some of the Co defense counsel tried it without the assistance. Someone in their office that I had in Maryland. And I don't know where to go forward, because the most interesting part of the case is how to get our client engaged with his own defense. Well, let me let me stop you and turn this over to Marlena for a moment. So what do you remember? Sort of the intake, the initial stages of this case, how my dad came to you and what happened, what you thought? What? What did you do? So, you know, let's be honest. Your dad is one of the best trial lawyers ever. Not just in Ohio, but. But ever. And it was a complete honor to be asked to help him into a system with this file. Once I saw what the damages were, though, I have to tell you, I was very anxious and very nervous because the potential here for a runaway verdict was enormous. The plaintiff was lovely and so visibly damaged and it was heart wrenching. It was heart wrenching to participate in her deposition. So I thought it was an unbelievable opportunity to learn from one of the very best and and to contribute in the most meaningful way that I could to try to defend this case. Had you worked with my dad before? Yes. Your dad was my assigned mentor. Okay. And so I had had the privilege of working with him before, but never on a case with this type of exposure. And quite candidly, that really required some great knowledge of the medicine and finding good experts and strategizing. How do we best defend this case on the medicine, particularly given that our client was not readily available? Makes perfect sense. So your client's not readily available. Did your client appear for any type of deposition at all? No, I did not. All right. Tell us about that. Well, so we have, Marilyn is going to elaborate on this because this is where she really saved the day. So we have a client who we're trying to make contact with, and he was non-communicative. He wouldn't even respond to any of our attempts to reach him. And so I am having apoplexy. How do I defend a lawsuit with these potential damages without having a client to defend himself? So when we found out where he was located, the decision was made to go to him red, because he would not come to us. Literally go to Kuwait. Literally. And so because Marilyn is who she is, it didn't take much persuasion. And she recognized immediately how crucial this is to the defense of our lawsuit. And so, of course, a marylander to Kuwait. Oh my God, I'll let her take it from there. What happened? So it was, the preparation was quite interesting, learning what it is that I would have to wear or not wear how I would have to conduct myself or not conduct myself. And I was ultimately given these great instructions by a tremendous paralegal by the name of Tammy Racing. You will go to Kuwait. You are in a western hotel. You may wear western clothes. This becomes important in a minute. So with a videographer, Steve from Safari. Oh my. Gosh. We meet at Cleveland Hopkins and begin our journey from Cleveland to New York to London to Kuwait. Oh my God. And we become fast, fast friends. I'm sure during those travels, when we arrive, we go directly to the hotel, and I have a piece of paper that has the doctor's name and address, but he is going to meet us at the hotel. Those are our arrangements and we are going to videotape him. I will do a direct examination to play this at trial, as though he were present live. And the plaintiff lawyer is going to be by phone. These are presumed days. So he's going to be by phone, piped in from the U.S. to Kuwait. And there was a time zone difference. Okay. So when we arrive, we we quickly find out the doctor's not coming because we're waiting and time's ticking and, oh, my. And there's a doctor and it dawns on me that there's only one thing to do. We have to get in a cab, and we have to go to his home. And we have to persuade him to come because we are there. Here's the part about the clothes. I didn't I was not covered in the proper manner to leave the Western Hotel, so no cab driver would talk to me. They would only talk to Steve. We arrive at the doctor's home. Well, how did Steve even communicate? He handed the taxi driver with a piece of paper, pointing, and we. And we got there. We got there knocking on the door. A housekeeper answered the door, and clearly he was trying to evade us. But I think ultimately he was so stunned that we were at his door that he said, okay, I'll shave and I'll come down. Meanwhile, I'm calling your dad, saying stall. To. Make up something because of this time difference stall. We're going to get him there and we did. And he went on video and we did a direct examination, and the plaintiff's lawyer conducted a cross examination, and we completed that assignment, turned around, got on the plane and came home. That is unbelievable. And then you use that video at trial? Yes, we did. And it this witness, he was fantastic. He was brilliant. He was a cardiothoracic surgery fellow who was in his fellowship here in the States, was moonlighting at the hospital as an emergency room physician, and took his talents back to his home country to start a cardiothoracic program. There he was as articulate as can be. He was able to explain his logic in his thinking. This lovely woman presented to an emergency room. It was July. She had a fever, she had no rash, and he had two options. I either admit her or discharge her because he couldn't really place why she had a fever, and in an abundance of caution, he actually did the very right thing and admitted her to the hospital for further evaluation by an infectious disease consultant. And it absolutely resonated with that jury that this gentleman who had one of two options absolutely did the right thing. And he was so confident, charismatic and articulate in his manner of explaining, he won the case for himself. Do you think that it helped him by being by video as opposed to being alive? I mean, did it help in front of the jury, the fact that this guy is comfortable in his home country being able to testify on video as opposed to live in front of a jury? Yeah, I think his personality was so strong and his story quite compelling in that he took his skills back home. That's a it's a nice story. It is a tell. And he was very relatable. And I think it was better to have him by video because your dad and I knew exactly what that evidence was going to be. The cross-examination was not perhaps what it could have been live at trial. And I think it was to everyone's best interest from from our defense to have that solidified before we walked into the courtroom. That's an amazing story, Marielena. So let's talk a little bit about the trial itself. So I'm a plaintiff lawyer. There's sad to say, but there's nothing that's more exciting as a plaintiff lawyer. And you experience this to to have a case where your damages are off the charts and here you have won. So as a plaintiff lawyer, I'd be looking at a case like this as someone who would say, boy, this is a career case for me and you. Here you are on the defense. You have an absentee defendant that you're defending, and you have these horrific damages. How do you develop a trial theme for a case like this? Well, first of all, I'm going to back up for just a second and I will answer your question. Marilyn is being more than gracious of all this client, this doctor that we had was initially very combative. He did not want to be involved. He felt that I live in Kuwait now, this is not my problem. This is your problem. And I was very, very concerned that he would be a hostile client. So but Maryland did, conduct that tremendous persuasive direct examination. Now what was interesting plaintiffs gone. So of course is of the mind that this is going to be a super retirement case for him. He's going to make zillions of dollars. And I could understand his thought process considering the damages. But I thought he would object to the fact that he had to cross-examine by telephone, and that we didn't have an obligation to bring the defendant to court to the United States. And he conducted a telephone cross examination, but it was not particularly persuasive in Maryland. I'll I'll lawyered him upside down, backwards and forwards. And it wasn't that he was an incompetent lawyer. He just was so overly confident that this was never going to fly in the courtroom that he he was willing to do it by telephone, because I'd much rather have this defendant on, video from Kuwait than come to the United States and testing. You know, I could understand that strategy going in. Right? You don't know how this person is going to present. So it there's there's risk and there's benefits. And I understand his decision making process, but so did I mean, one of the things that we do now, which I don't know if you did back then, is we would focus the case like yours quite a bit. And we try to develop the right theme so that we could present that theme to the jury. What did you do to prepare the case? Well, when you're defending a case like this where you have, a plaintiff who's very sympathetic. I mean, how do you do this? You don't you don't put the the plaintiffs on trial. You just don't. So you have to put the medicine on trial. And so it became a trial to discuss a very rare bacterial blood disease. And so that's where we really focused their case. And so we got we retained excellent witnesses. We were prepared to cross-examine the plaintiff's experts. And so we literally I mean I personally essentially ignored the plaintiff herself for the bulk of the trial, devoting almost all the attention on the medicine. And that's how we approached the case. And from the plaintiff's perspective, Marielena, do you remember how did the plaintiff present the case? Did they try to build on the emotions of it all? So I have to emphasize what your dad said, I think, and rightfully so, with the damages that were involved in this case, the plaintiff's counsel really believed this was a foregone plaintiff's verdict of incredible dollar amount and an incredible dollar amount. And so their strategy was to focus on the plaintiff, focus on the plaintiff. Right. But she wasn't in the courtroom. So building drama for her ultimate entrance into the courtroom on day 3 or 4 of trial. So the jury was in a position where they were waiting, waiting, waiting with bated breath to to see the plaintiff, to meet the plaintiff. And and in really tremendous dramatic flare, the doors of the courtroom open and the plaintiff is brought in on a stretcher. And the visual, you know, you you feel that pain, that angst, no arms, no legs on a stretcher wielded by ambulance personnel. And she was a compelling, compelling witness. And in my analysis, then a grave error was made. The plaintiff counsel, at the conclusion of her direct examination, kissed her on the cheek. And I don't know if it's my perspective as a woman, as a lawyer, as both at that very moment. It felt just so incredibly wrong, so incredibly wrong. And I, I felt that the jury reacted in that same fashion. It took away from her, put the emphasis on the on the attorney and it, it, it was it just didn't play well at all. Almost over the. Top, over the top. It was it it felt uncomfortable. So which one of the two of you cross-examined the plaintiff? Marilyn I don't recall. I don't know something you. Yeah, I, I would bet it was me, but I honestly don't and. I assume it was a soft cross. Soft when I tell you I was uncomfortable at her deposition asking her questions, I just wanted her to be home and be comfortable. I could see that, you know, one of the things that you mentioned to me, Marilyn, I know you even teach this now is the importance of building credibility. First. When you said that to me, it really resonated. And I think I mentioned to you that one of the mistakes that I have made over the last 20 some years is putting the defendant on cross-examination early in my case, usually my first witness going after the defendant as if on cross-examination is my first witness. And meanwhile I haven't built any credibility with the jury. And the jury is looking at me saying, why is this guy picking on this poor witness? Did it take you a while to learn that as a lawyer, did that come from defending cases, like how did you come up with that? Well, no, it took me a minute, Andy, because on the defense side, you watch trial essentially for the first week. I mean, you're an active participant, but you're not putting on your case. Your story comes second as a plaintiff lawyer, as you well know, right? You're telling your story for the first time, and you have to stop and take a breath and recognize this jury doesn't know me. They have no idea if I know what I'm doing or if I'm don't if I don't. And in all likelihood, their bias is in favor of care providers, right? Because these folks go to school and take an oath and, and take care of us. And so in order for me to best illustrate what the error was to best represent my client, I need to build credibility that I know what I'm saying, and I have to be respectful as I build that credibility. Once I once I've built it, then I can expose the error through an effective cross-examination. So now I'm rethinking who do I call first? Because you can't come out hot and expect everybody to understand what your story is. You haven't developed it yet. Whereas on the defense, the story has been developed and is well known. By the time you stand up and are talking to the jury. That's such an interesting point. And I think that bodes really into what you were saying earlier, that about focusing the case on the medicine. Was that your way of establishing credibility with the jury, or you just felt that that was the best defense, or was it a combination of the two? It was a combination of the two, for sure. You would not even begin to think of attacking the plaintiff under these circumstances. The truth of the matter is, if she had gotten to the emergency room sooner, she may well have been able to salvage your limbs. But I'm not about to criticize or for sitting around their home being desperate, Leo, and waiting for the last minute to arrive at the hospital. So you are obviously very empathetic and supportive of the plaintiff and the dilemma she has in raising her children. In my considered opinion, with the benefit of hindsight of a different lawyer with a different personality may well have prevailed in the case. I think the error that the plaintiff's lawyer made is that he was so overconfident. Marilyn alluded to this, that this is a case you can't possibly lose, that he was sort of I don't know how to describe his personality. He was sort of disdainful of the defense. Like, how do you even have the nerve to come into a courtroom and try to defend this case? And once we put on a credible defense of the medicine and established for the jury what a rare disease this is and how difficult it is for physicians in this position to treat a patient like this. It sort of got him off kilter like that, man. You know, they really do have a way to defend this case. What am I going to do now? And I love that approach because the medicine is complicated. So you have to explain that to the jury. But the defense is simple. As Marilyn described. You have two options hitch you admit, right. Or you discharge. And here the doctor did the right thing, he admitted. And when you take this complicated medicine and you simplify it and distill it to that fine of a point. To me. That's what's great lawyering. And one of the things, dad, that you've you've taught me very early on is the difference between good lawyers and great lawyers are the great lawyers have relevant minds, and you use that term a lot. And it is always resonated with me. And I try very hard in my practice. Not always successfully, but that's what I try to do, is focus on what is relevant. Take what's. Kind of complicated and simplify it. And it sounds like that's what the two of you did in this trial and did it well. So one thing about your dad, Andy, is his courtroom demeanor is very it's a very commanding presence in it, in an incredibly intelligent way, in other words, he controlled the knowledge of the medicine in that courtroom. Everyone. And by everyone, I mean jury judge, bailiff was looking to him when he stood up to learn that medicine. So we've left out that there were co-defendants in the case. So we had the emergency room physician, and then there was an infectious disease physician who was also being criticized. And in the hospital, nursing personnel and your dad actually defended that case for everyone when he would stand up and discuss the medicine, so that what really happened is it did take the plaintiff counsel off kilter, because I don't think he saw that this defense, this explanation of the medicine was really going to ultimately exonerate everybody. And it was Gary Goldwasser who did that in the courtroom. And I think that's what won the case was being able to explain this medicine, explain it for all the caregivers, without ever once saying anything about the plaintiff other than we were so empathetic and sorry for what had had happened with her. And, you know, I think juries watch everything we do. I'm I'm so anal about my trial. You know, how everything looks and how I sit and this was in the day when trial demonstratives, the companies that come in and help with. Trial, all these electronic graphics and these giant timelines and all this was. All new in the plaintiff lawyers. One was from out of state, had hired a company to help with their trial graphics, and there was one document, I don't remember what it was, but one document that was being used over and over and over again. And they had just had it up on the screen for a direct. And your dad said, oh, can you put that back up? I'm going to use it for cross. And they said, no, if you want it. Did they say that in front of the times? 1,000,000%. They said no in front of the jury and something along the lines of if if you wanted it, you could have you could have brought it in. I just don't understand that. I mean, how can they think that that will help them win? So that was the mindset, though, where your dad says disdain of the defense. I when I helped tie that together, that was sort of the mindset that I think going into the case. Oh, okay, I get it, I get it. You have a big case with big damages, but now we're in the courtroom and the dynamic has has changed. And there's clearly one person here who's leading the charge with the defense of the case, and it's the one person now you just spoke to in a manner that really is not going to be well-received. And, and you sort of are shooting yourself in the foot, by the way, that you're by the way you're doing this. How many defendants were there at trial? Because I know one settled out right? Correct. One settled and there were two the hospital. Okay. And the emergency room physician. Was there any pointing the finger at all at the end? Did they did the hospital point the finger at your in your direction? No, not at all. It was clearly a united defense. But you know, I notice you're here for trial war stories. But to be generic in the conversation and the. I always believed that one must keep it simple. You have to as you said, you've got to be relevant and you can't just be all over the place. And so our job as defense counsel, in the case of this magnitude, and obviously we picked out this case is the example of our discussion here today, is because there are very few cases in civil law which have potential damages like this. I mean, in today's inflationary market, if a plaintiff received an award in a case like this, I think you would agree that you're talking about multi-millions of dollars. There with with that was for sure that would be the case. I mean, verdicts are really trending up for plaintiffs, as Marilyn can attest to. And there's no doubt that this would have been a significant, significant seven, probably eight, eight figure verdict. I think her her life care plan was in the double digit millions. Well, so it really I mean, I know we're being repetitive here, but the but what you do is you establish your credibility by discussing the medicine and a credible fashion. And and that was a monumental task, I know, to discuss a very complicated rare disease, to make it so that the jury could understand and get themselves in the shoes of the defendants. And this is Maryland a has has made reference. This doctor who was here as a cardiothoracic fellow is confronted with an extremely rare disease. A patient he's never seen before who just is brought into the emergency room and extremists. What is this poor fellow supposed to do? And saying it in a presentable fashion turns the whole thing around to the point where the jury is now empathetic to the defendant? Sure, this poor doctor look over here to deal with, and he's got to live with this lawsuit hanging over his head when it wasn't his fault that this this poor lady with all these children came down with this god awful, that terrible infection. He didn't cause the infection. He was just doing the best he could. And so that was the general theme of the defense. And just to give you an idea of how effective your dad was, the hospital lost as to standard of care. Wow. The hospital won on the issue of causation, and that is due to one man, and he's sitting to my right and explaining the medicine is what allowed that jury to understand that even though they found the nurses had not acted according to the standard of care, they didn't cause the injury. The illness did. It was huge. The explanation of the medicine was a pivotal factor, not only in the verdict in favor of our client, but also with respect to the verdict in favor of the hospital. And I think if the hospital lawyer were sitting right here, he would say exactly what I'm saying. Wow. Well, that's really interesting. I mean, there's two other things that I'd like to touch on. The, one is, you know, dad, one of the other things that you've taught me as a trial lawyer is, you know, we talked we have talked about the differences between what I do on the plaintiff side and the work that you did on the defense side. And my brother, your other son is also a defense lawyer. And we we talk about how we, as plaintiff lawyers pick and choose our cases. Right? A client comes to us. We if we don't like that client, we don't have to take the case. You as a defense lawyer didn't get to pick and choose your clients, but you always made it a point when you tried these cases to humanize your client and put yourself in your client's shoes. Can you talk a little bit about that and why that was so important for you as a defense lawyer? Well, of course, the focus of my law practice the last 30 plus years in my practice was the sending physicians and hospitals. So one has to, as Marilyn has alluded, one has to allow the jury to appreciate what it takes to be a skilled physician. And once the physician is confronted with. And so you got to humanize the doctor. And I must confess to you that the few cases of share I've lost my share of cases where there have been planned verdicts almost universally, the reason the case was prevailed by the plaintiff is because the doctor was unable to humanize himself. He became full of himself, like, you know, how could you even question me? I'm a doctor, and you got to see to it that your client does not develop that kind of persona in front of a jury. And that's tough. That's hard with doctors. However, it's interesting because here now the doctor is relying upon me. He's so used to patients relying on him. Now he's coming to his lawyer. That lawyer. I need your help. I've got a problem. Lawyer. What do I do? How do I get out of here? So it gives me the prerogative to say that, man or woman, physician, whoever it might be, and explain the facts to them about what it takes to win a case at trial. And now I'm in charge. You're not in charge. You're going to follow my my advice, my lead, and we'll get through this. And so generally, that's the approach that I would take. How many cases do you think Marilyn, let me ask you this. How many cases. Just an average. Do you think are won or lost by virtue of how good or bad the plaintiff is and how good or bad the defendant is? So it's an interesting question, Andy. And I think the majority I mean, I think experts cancel each other out in in. Large I do too. I think that they neutralize their neutral. And I think it's the strength of really the defendant if if the defendant is strong, likable, compassionate, are able to explain the medicine in his or her decision making. I think that's a defense verdict. I really do. And the reason I ask that question is twofold. First, here you have a client who's not appearing live. So we go back to that, who's from Kuwait, a middle eastern country. Not an easy stigma to overcome. Right. And you have a sympathetic plaintiff. So in your case you're relying really heavily on experts. I have to imagine. Right. I mean, especially if you're trying a medicine case. So that's the first thing. And the second thing that I've learned as a trial lawyer is I think it's important in any story to have a good guy and a bad guy, right? You have to have that. Did you have a bad guy in your case and if so, who? We did have a bad guy. It turned out to be the plaintiff's attorney. And that happens a lot. Whether somebody has to be the bad person in a courtroom. And in your case, that's interesting. That any failure. I didn't know the plaintiffs lawyer very well. I didn't know him hardly at all. On a personal level. And my impression he's just he's not a bad person. He was just so overly confident about his case that he became disdainful of everybody else, and that made him a persona non grata in front of the jury. And he lost his own case. And by the way, when the defense verdict came in, I thought would never get him off the floor, he was well, we're. Going to talk about that. Hold on a minute. Hold on. No, don't don't don't get there yet. Marielena. Do you agree with that that it that in your case the bad guy was the plaintiff lawyer or was it some other witness? No. I agree with your dad. You know, as you watched it unfold on day one, there was no bad guy. But as the trial took on speed and witnesses started to get put on the stand and behaviors started to manifest in the courtroom, it became the plaintiff's lawyer. I find that so interesting because on so many levels. But the life of a trial, how a trial just evolves, right? You could you work your tail off, getting prepared for things. You think about every word and rewrite every word 100 times, and then you go in there and it and it changes and it changes quick. And the good trial lawyers are able to change with it. So just an interesting point. So here you are. Tell us about the verdict Marilla, and tell us what happened. It was Thanksgiving. Oh boy. It was Thanksgiving. And the jury went out on a Tuesday. Right, Gary? The Tuesday before Thanksgiving, frankly, I think it was the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. And although as we sit here today and reflect on it, we can tell you about these moments in trial that were uncomfortable where we thought the plaintiff's lawyer had made some missteps, the case, the denial of the opportunity to use the video. When that jury went out to deliberate, we were nervous. I'm sure we were really nervous. I'm sure. And, it's Thanksgiving. Let me repeat that. It's Thanksgiving. So where they out over Thanksgiving? Yes, they were. And and you know, the the traditional thinking is the faster the jury comes back, the more likely it is a defense verdict was they didn't have to think about the various questions that they have to answer. To have Thanksgiving dinner with their family where they're thankful for everything. And then you have a plaintiff with no arms and no legs who's not thankful for anything at the moment. Correct. And they came back on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Oh my gosh. I don't think that you and I had a very peaceful Thanksgiving that year. I mean, you know, it's the same goes for, for whether you're a criminal case or a civil case. The worst time trial is while the jury is out and you're waiting while I'm in the middle of a trial, I'm much more relaxed that I am after the jury goes out to deliberate that that is good, that awful stress. Let me tell you this. Just so you get you get you got the call on Friday to come to the courthouse. Is that how it worked? I this is how I'm remembering it, Andy. If it was the Wednesday before or the Friday after, I honestly don't know. But they were out two days. Two for the. Okay. It was awful. Did you wait at the courthouse? Well, I can't imagine you're waiting anywhere. No, I mean, I remember Maryland. I would simply go back to the office and, you know, close my office door and pray, you know, what could you do? I mean, there are so many backstories of this trial and that we haven't even discussed Scott's. One of them was the jury selection. Remember, we have an African-American woman, and the plaintiff's attorney was absolutely horrified that if we would excuse a potential juror who was an African-American and that occupied probably a half a day in the judge's chambers, talking about the appropriateness of picking a fair and impartial jury. That's just as an aside, Baxter. Did you have a jury in mind that you wanted before this case? Like was there a certain type of juror that you were looking for now? You didn't even think it through that much? Well, I mean, generally speaking, when you're defending a lawsuit like this, you want somebody who is you think is going to be able to relate to the medicine and just not respond emotionally to the obvious emotion of this case. And, you know, it's as you say, we talk about picking a fair and impartial jury. That's not true. You want to pick a jury that's going to be partial to you. And so lawyers talk about fair and impartial because they go through that mantra with the jury. But a good trial is looking for a jury that could potentially have bias for his or her side. Which I still I keep going back to this because it's just so interesting to me in the modern day of trial, where we're looking for the right jurors, what do we do? Maryland. And we hire focus groups. We hire jury consultants. I mean, I'm big, big cases, right? And we go we scour social media. We do anything and everything that we can. And it sounds to me like you just had some general thoughts as you went in and you put on your case and you did it exceptionally well. Am I saying that correctly? I think you're more to it than that. Oh, I don't think. I mean, what for? Rather than belaboring what we've already discussed, I think that's essentially it. I mean, as always, taught you and others who I work with keep it simple, stupid. I mean, really, you cannot overthink a case. You've got a related to how is the jury going to respond to the facts of this case? And I used to spend a lot of time sitting in my office behind the closed door, just sitting there thinking about this, thinking about it, and thinking about it. To me, that is an important part of trial preparation, but I'm getting off kilter. Well, no, it. Is the professor trial tactics that's really. You're not getting off topic because it's such an interesting comment. And and Marlena, we we need to be reminded and need to be reminded regularly of the danger of over trying a case. And that's so it's a good lesson to be reminded of. So your dad just said something and I have to share something with both of you. Judge Michelle Sheehan has been a guest professor, during my trial tactics class. And when she came to speak to the class, Gary, she told them that the most valuable advice she received in her career was from you. And you told her that the most important part of the job was to think and to close your door and think. And she does that routinely. And she honest to goodness just said to my class, it is the best, most valuable advice I can pass on to you. Please actually do it. Wow, that is great. Marlena. Thank you. Marilyn thank you. She asked. You know. I didn't know that. Well, dad, you you have built an incredible legacy that continues to this day and the Cleveland legal community, and we're all grateful for it. I certainly know it has opened up a lot of doors for me personally, and I am so appreciative of those opportunities. I hope to goodness that I haven't let you down. Or you haven't at all. So you've made me proud. I know this is a mutual admiration society, but it's nice to be able to say to your son, wow, you make me proud. And as you know, I've always preached nothing is more valuable than your reputation. Nothing. So always maintain credibility. Truthfulness, reliability will serve you well. Thank you. I really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you all so much for being here. Andy. Thank you so much. This was so much fun, I loved it. Thank you, thank you. I have other cases we could talk about. Yeah, we'll save that for another podcast.