Opinion ID: 1058370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cross Examination: Prior Statement

Text: We next address whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court erred in denying a motion for a mistrial after the plaintiff cross-examined a defense expert witness, Dr. John Eichorn, with a prior statement in which the witness had described his role as a defense expert in an unrelated case. The trial court ruled that the cross-examination was improper but that a mistrial was not warranted. The record reveals that the following exchange occurred during the cross-examination of Dr. Eichorn: Q. Do you perceive it as your role in participating in a case for the defense, with issues like this, that it is incumbent upon you to create a theory of defense. A. No. Q. That would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? A. And potentially not possible. Q. Do you consider it your role to be an advocate for the party for whom you're testifying? A. No. Q. That would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? A. Correct. .... Q. Now let me take it like this, and make it a little bit more specific. You've testified in a case before where you were the expert witness for an anesthesiologist where the blood pressure got too low and the patient's brain died, haven't you. A. I don't recall specifically, but it's certainly possible. Q. Well, we're going to  let me see if I can help you. Have you ever before, Dr. Eichorn, in serving in this type of role, when serving as an expert witness for an anesthesiologist, sued because a patient came out of surgery brain dead because of low blood pressure, said to the defense lawyer who hired you, ` There are big problems with what your anesthesiologist did, but I will help you create a theory to defend this case, and short of hiring an outright prostitute, I'm the best you are going to find? ' Have you ever said that? After the defense objected, Dr. Eichorn denied that he made the statement. In a jury-out hearing, counsel for the plaintiff proffered a letter in which a lawyer attributed the statement to Dr. Eichorn in an unrelated case and argued that the witness could be impeached with the prior inconsistent statement and with evidence of his bias in favor of the defendants. The defendants argued that there was no factual basis upon which to find that Dr. Eichorn had made the statement. [6] The trial court concluded that the statement was not admissible to impeach Dr. Eichorn as a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 613 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The trial court also found that the prior statement could not be used to show Dr. Eichorn's bias in favor of the defendants under Rule 616 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. The trial court's offer to instruct the jury to disregard the question was declined by the defendants. The trial court denied the defendants' later motion for a mistrial. The Court of Appeals held that there was no reasonable factual basis for the question and that the cross-examination of Dr. Eichorn with the prior statement was reversible error under Rule 613.