On television court dramas, witnesses give clear answers to direct questions. After all, the entire story has to wrap by the top of the hour. In real life, testimony isn’t always so easy.
Put yourself in the jurors’ seat for this exchange between Kristen Neuhaus and prosecutor Barry Disney during the trial of George Tiller Monday. Tiller is charged with performing abortions in an illegal business relationship with Neuhaus, another doctor.
In the following video, Neuhaus appears to take pains to keep from saying she “worked” for Tiller, even has she compares what she did in Wichita to a doctor she “worked for” in Kansas City, Kan. This video lasts less than three minutes. Jurors have had to listen to days of this kind of testimony:
3 Comments
It looks like we need to use her definition of “work” Rubber stamping the primary docs abortion. Now she says she doesn’t work. She got caught with her misleading testimony. No wonder we ned to get parental consent for abortions. she is one to keep daughters away from.
Ron, congratulations on your recognition in The Guardian newspaper over here in Britain. Enjoy following your trial work, always interesting to see how our systems compare.
In relation to this line of questioning, while of course the short clip doesn’t give us the context of questions and answers up to this point, any confusion appears to be squarely at the feet of the prosecutor.
This lady is quite right to say that the original question was specific, “have you had any similar experience where you could not see your patients except through someone at the hospital” – when she answers actually yes there was, when I worked for Dr – the prosecutor then suggests that she has said her work for that Dr was similar to her work for Dr Tiller. She didn’t say that and the confusion is caused not by her answers but by the prosecutor.
In his defence I would not like to have my every question filmed and scrutinised – but I also know that my questions are being scrutinised by judges who would have involved themselves at this point and made it perfectly clear to the jury who was at fault for any confusion.
Keep up the good work
Interested Counsel
Thanks for your interest from Britain. You have some good powers of observation. From what I heard later, the doctor was not happy with the way the questions were being asked.