An Interesting Call

I received a very interesting phone call that made me laugh. I just have to wonder what some are thinking (or in this case not thinking).

An attorney's office called asking to speak to me about a collision that I worked in 2006. This is not overly unusual.

The staff person in the attorney's office provided me the case file number and asked if it would be okay for the attorney to call.

Now here is where I laughed. I think I made a strong impression on her. The attorney still has not called.

She wanted to know if it would be okay for the attorney to call. She then informed me that the attorney's were in the middle of their civil trial. That they would not be able to call until the Judge recessed the case for the night.

She then told me that a witness was testifying in the case and that his testimony was contrary to what was in my police report. Not having the ability to look at the report, I could not tell her anything. I also told her that I was not going to be much help without looking at the report.

She then informed me of the location of the collision. Again, this is not unusual. What was very unusual is the fact that she thought that I would immediately know about this collision and would have an idea of what happened, who was involved and what they told me at the scene. She then informed me that she could fax it to me. When I responded that I did not have a fax machine, she got flustered.

I know that we all should remember each and every event in life. I know that some are really good at knowing their job and the location of many things. There is a gentleman who works in traffic engineering. He can tell you where every sign and what type of sign is in Tulsa. IMPRESSIVE!

I guess my difficulty is in the numbers. I looked over my statistics one month. I worked an average of three (3) collisions a day. Now working five (5) days a week, that would be about fifteen (15) collisions a week. Now in a four (4) week period, that would be about sixty (60) collisions a month. Now in one years time, I might have worked an average of seven hundred and twenty (720) collisions. In this mix is several fatalities, which means the investigations are intense and time consuming.

Now to have an attorney's office call, while in the middle of their trial is unbelievable. I have testified in many civil and criminal trials dealing with traffic collision. In many of these cases, the attorney met with me multiple times and conducted some pre trial conferences.

I can only remember one other case that is similar to this one. On the morning of the trial (day one), the attorney thought that he should subpoena the reporting officer (that would be me). This was after the jury was selected.

I had to explain to the judge, at 0830 hours (8:30 am), that I had just received the subpoena at 0700 hours (7 am) and that I needed to make arrangement for my children. This judge was so generous. She gave me till 1100 hours (11 am) to go home, plan for my children, get some sleep and return to court.

As I left the judge's chambers, I could hear her yelling at the attorney. She was shocked that he would wait until the day of the trial to subpoena the reporting officer on a case that was planned (on the docket) for one year.

Her last comments to the attorney, "Sir, you better make sure that you compensate that officer for his time, inconvenience and his testimony. I am sure that his information is going to be beneficial to your case. And if I ever hear that you have done this again, I am going to hold you in contempt and excuse any witness who receives a subpoena at the last minute."

What really struck me was the judge's comments about case preparation. I guess what made me laugh this time was that this attorney was really prepared for his case. I am sure that somewhere in law school, they talked about case preparation. I am also pretty sure that they talked about discovery and how that discovery applies to witnesses. I am also pretty sure that they might have discussed pre trial conferences with witnesses.

See I believe this to be true, because one very important learning statement in law school is: NEVER ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER!

In this case, if a witness is testifying and that testimony does not match what was originally reported, then you should have a witness, ready and waiting to discredit that testimony. That means, plan ahead. Have a pre trial conference with all those involved in the case. Plan on what will be testified too. Review depositions and develop strong questions for your case.

Maybe they should add a continuing education class on "During the trial is not the time to seek out information and or witnesses"

Maybe I will suggest this to the Bar Association. I wonder if I have the credibility to be the one to provide the lecture? Just a thought.