Opinion ID: 1919235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Controversy.

Text: ¶ 3. During trial, an issue surfaced involving Robinson's ability to produce one of his experts, Dr. Greer Richardson, for live testimony, rather than submitting his testimony by deposition. Having been informed long before trial that Dr. Richardson had a conflict [4] with the trial date, Robinson had already deposed him for trial purposes. However, Dr. Richardson informed Robinson by letter dated August 29, 2001, that, if he was needed to appear live at trial, he would try to make arrangements to get there. In his response to Dr. Richardson the next day, Robinson said he would like for Dr. Richardson to appear live, and he asked Dr. Richardson to keep him advised of his availability. ¶ 4. On October 22, 2001, Dr. Richardson indicated to Robinson's co-counsel that, due to the conflict, he did not think he could appear. Thereafter, several contacts were made in an unsuccessful attempt to arrange a flight schedule which would allow Dr. Richardson to appear live. On January 9, 2002, Dr. Richardson informed Robinson that he would not be able to appear. ¶ 5. Apparently, Dr. Richardson later learned that there was a possibility he could arrange to get to Jackson for the trial. Although the record does not reflect how this new development was communicated from Dr. Richardson, Robinson's co-counsel informed plaintiff's counsel by letter dated February 5, 2002 (six days before trial) of the possibility of Dr. Richardson's live appearance. The letter stated, We don't know one way or the other as of yet. ¶ 6. The trial began, as scheduled, with Dr. Richardson still unsure about his ability to travel to Jackson for live testimony. During the week of trial, the subject apparently came up (although we aren't told how), and Robinson apparently informed Judge Green that Dr. Richardson might be able to testify live. Judge Green responded by saying, So what I offered to you ahead of time, [5] you now want to say if he doesn't come then you want to have the deposition by tape? Robinson responded in the affirmative. ¶ 7. At this point, it appears to this Court that the issue had been clearly and respectfully presented by Robinson to Judge Green, and that she clearly understood. What is unclear is why the matter didn't simply drop until time for Dr. Richardson's testimony, at which time he would either walk to the witness stand, or Robinson would offer his deposition testimony. For whatever reason, Judge Green did not let the matter drop. The exchange that next took place cannot be reconciled with anything previously stated or anything elsewhere in the record. For clarity, we will recite the relevant portion of the record provided to us, verbatim: THE COURT: So, again, Mr. Robinson, Dr. Richardson will be here correct? MR. ROBINSON: He has booked a flight and we anticipate him being here. I would say 99.99 percent chance that he will be here. THE COURT: Mr. Robinson, why are you playing games with words. I knew whether my witnesses were going to be at trial when I was practicing law. Why is it that you don't know whether Dr. Richardson will be here or not? MR. ROBINSON: Because he previously advised us that he would not be able to be here for the trial and we've also had one witness die, one of our experts, so I'm a little  THE COURT: I didn't ask you about nobody else but Dr. Richardson. I'm saying why don't you know whether Dr. Richardson will be here or not. I'm well aware that tomorrow none of us may be here. But I want to know why you can't tell me that Dr. Richardson will be here. He's your expert. MR. ROBINSON: Yes, ma'am. What I said a few minutes ago, he previously advised us that he could not make it. . . . We're going to call him by video in accordance with the rules. MR. STEVENS: Dr. Leventen is the one that was indicated to this court was too old to travel. THE COURT: Hold on. If you say in accordance with the rules one more time, counsel, I know the rules. I understand the rules very well. So from now on you don't have to put that editorial at the end of every statement because every time that you've said it have you noticed I hesitated. I'm counting. I understand very well what the rules are, but this morning you can't tell me whether Dr. Richardson will be here and you come up with this nice way of saying you can't guarantee, you're 99 percent sure that he'll be here, but if he doesn't, you want to use his deposition. We have been arguing over this back and forth for a year now, Mr. Robinson, and I just cannot believe that you couldn't find you a couple of experts that would not be a problem that the plaintiff would have the benefit of their testimony and be able to rebut or cross-examine. . . . But it's their case. And if they don't want that doctor here live to testify to that jury, that's fine with me. That's what I told them when they decided to make the interlocutory appeal. But it doesn't bother me when people appeal. That's just the nature of the beast. But for some reason attorneys think they can threaten the judge by saying they want to take an interlocutory appeal. If I were a younger lawyer that might would work, but I been practicing too long. So, in terms of that, I'll just need to have the depositions so that when you do make your objections I'll know how I'm going to rule because I will have read the depositions. But I am not as dumb as you think. I know very well what Mr. Robinson and the other attorneys are doing when they are playing the game with Dr. Richardson, and it is a game. MR. STEVENS: And I think you're a lot smarter than me by the way. THE COURT: If he is going to be here, he's going to be here. If he isn't, he isn't. But they are taking a chance on me because they may not have Dr. Richardson either way.    THE COURT: Counsel, I been reading the file and I've read the file for a number of times and every place I did a second look at it today and every place there was an indication that Dr. Richardson wouldn't be here. MR. STACK: That he wasn't going to be here? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. STACK: He had a flight and he was prepared to be here and testify Friday and that was why we  THE COURT: Then what's the problem if he was going to be here Friday to testify. MR. STACK: Right. THE COURT: Okay. Well, what's the problem. MR. STACK: Well, I thought Your Honor said we weren't going to have court on Friday. THE COURT: Right. And you only came up to tell me that he wasn't going to be here on Friday after you learned I said I wasn't going to be here. So what's the problem with him coming Friday anyway? MR. ROBINSON: If I may address, Your Honor. Your Honor called and spoke with Dr. Munn. If the court thinks that we're playing games I don't have any problem with you calling Dr. Richardson. We work with the facts we're given and end up doing the best we can. THE COURT: I asked you whether Dr. Richardson on Monday was going to be here on Friday. MR. ROBINSON: And I gave you an honest answer based upon the information available to me. THE COURT: Counsel, I've never had anyone at any trial at any time I've been on this bench tell me in the terms that you told me Monday, that you may or may not have an expert. This is the first time anybody walked in an told me, well, we don't know because our expert is at a convention. You knew a year ago, a year ago, that Dr. Richardson was not going to be here. Is that correct? MR. ROBINSON: Your Honor, I've given you the information as honestly as I can. If you want me to take the stand and give it to you that way or you can call Dr. Richardson. All I can do is give you  THE COURT: I want you to answer my question. You knew a year ago that Dr. Richardson was not going to be here; am I correct? MR. ROBINSON: When you set this case for trial, we checked and there was a conflict. These things were planned a year in advance. That's why we moved for a continuance, which you denied. THE COURT: And you appealed it and the Supreme Court denied it. MR. ROBINSON: That's my problem, yes, ma'am. THE COURT: And evidently they looked at the fact that you knew a year ago that Dr. Richardson couldn't be here, didn't you? MR. ROBINSON: One of them agreed with us. And, Judge, I can only do what I can do. And if there is something else you tell me to do, I'll do my best to accommodate the court. THE COURT: Get Dr. Richardson here on Friday. You said you'd do what I wanted you to do, and we'll have him testify on Saturday morning. MR. ROBINSON: I'll do the best I can. I cannot tell you that he'll definitely be here. THE COURT: You couldn't tell me anything Monday. MR. ROBINSON: I gave you an honest answer Monday, and I'm giving you an honest one today. THE COURT: No, you did not give me an honest answer. You're not giving me an honest answer today. I asked you about the Supreme Court ruling and you told me one person agreed with you. Do you have an order from that one person? MR. ROBINSON: No, I don't have an order from that one person. THE COURT: So why did you say that? MR. ROBINSON: Because it was the truth. THE COURT: But why did you feel it was necessary to say that to me, Mr. Robinson? MR. ROBINSON: Judge, I can see we're going to disagree. I respect Your Honor, and I will do whatever I can to accommodate the court and abide by the ruling of the court. There's nothing more than I can do. THE COURT: I'll ask you again. Then why did you say to this court that one person agreed with you? What was the reason for you to say that to me, Mr. Robinson? MR. ROBINSON: I can't remember the context it came up but that is an accurate fact. THE COURT: And what's the significant of that? MR. ROBINSON: None. THE COURT: So why did you say it? MR. ROBINSON: I cannot tell you, Judge. THE COURT: I know you can. MR. ROBINSON: I guess in responding to your questions. THE COURT: I do understand, Mr. Robinson. You know something, there has not been a single questions that I've asked you that you have answered directly, not a single one. And we expect witnesses to get on the stand and answer the question that we direct to them. But how can we do that when I have not had you this entire case when I asked you a question to give me a direct answer. MR. ROBINSON: Your Honor, I feel like I have. We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. THE COURT: I don't know whether we do or not. But I do expect integrity in the attorneys getting up here before me. MR. ROBINSON: You have that. THE COURT: No, sir, I do not, Mr. Robinson. Anytime I ask you a questions and you can't give me a direct answer, I'm not sure I got integrity or not. Now I knew when I said that I wouldn't be here Friday exactly what was going to happen and I could have written it down and it still would have been true that the moment I said I was not going to be here Friday, you-all would come in and tell me Dr. Richardson couldn't get here for Saturday. MR. ROBINSON: Well, if you believe that you'll  THE COURT: Can he get here for Monday? MR. ROBINSON: Yes, And if Your Honor, if you want to put me on the stand or even Dr. Richardson to  THE COURT: He can be here for Monday? MR. ROBINSON: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: We'll have him here on Monday morning. Bring the jury in. I assume that that means then that I don't have to rule on any of these objections. We'll have Dr. Richardson live on Monday morning, and it's absolutely timely, simply because we are out of term. . . . ¶ 8. After diligent search by the members of this Court, we are unable to locate within the transcript or other papers provided to us, [6] the source of Judge Green's anger and vitriol toward Robinson concerning production of Dr. Richardson. ¶ 9. In his brief, plaintiff's counsel attributes the controversy to his assessment of Robinson as difficult and frustrating; one who plays with words, refuses to give a straight answer and then blames everyone and everything around when their (sic) hand is called. Early in his brief, plaintiff's counsel assures us that we will learn, through a careful dissection of defense exhibits, they [7] (sic) are playing loose with the facts. . . . Finally, plaintiff's counsel assures us that it will become evident that the controversy had nothing to do with the Judge and everything to do with a perjuring expert witness who caused his frivolous defense to crumble before his very eyes. ¶ 10. Finding ourselves intrigued by these bold and confident averments from plaintiff's counsel concerning evidence we had apparently missed, we redoubled our effort and again diligently searched each page, paragraph and line of the record for the promised evidence of Robinson's questioned conduct. We found nothing. Not a single jot nor tittle in the transcript or exhibits before this Court [8] demonstrated the slightest disrespect or insult from Robinson directed toward the Court. We found nothing to indicate that Robinson was playing loose with the facts. And we found nothing whatsoever to indicate that Robinson's motion was related to an alleged perjuring expert witness. [9] ¶ 11. Plaintiff's counsel claims that after Judge Green stated she would not hold court on Friday, Robinson curiously declared that Dr. Richardson could be available-but only on Friday. The transcript does not bear out this claim. ¶ 12. Plaintiff's counsel claims that when Judge Green offered to allow Dr. Richardson to testify on Saturday, the offer was inexplicably rebuffed by defense counsel. Again, the transcript does not bear out this claim. ¶ 13. Finally, plaintiff's counsel claims that Robinson lacked the requisite respectful tone as he continued to allege that Dr. Richardson was not available for any other times. We find no instance in the record where Robinson ever alleged that Dr. Richardson was available only on Friday, and at no other time. ¶ 14. This litany of unreliable representations by plaintiff's counsel compels us to place little reliance on his briefs and we strongly urge plaintiff's counsel to carefully consider and check the accuracy of his representations to this Court before signing them. ¶ 15. In support of his motion, Mr. Robinson cites from the trial transcript other examples of hostile statements by Judge Green, including the following: JUDGE GREEN: You don't have to suggest to me what to do. I know what to mark for identification counsel.    MR. ROBINSON: No, but he got one of the 1988 that was stamped in the Jackson Bone & Joint Clinic stamp when the box fill (sic) on his foot which I believe depicts all of his calluses (sic), I believe the 2nd, 4th, & 5th. JUDGE GREEN: Well, I don't need your belief. I need an answer to my question. I'll ask again. Whose medical history did he have? Did he have Dr. Hughes?    MR. ROBINSON: The Mississippi Supreme Court requires that you put on evidence of a crime, what you have to show that's probative of dishonesty. JUDGE GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I missed that in law school. ¶ 16. The record provides no justification whatsoever for Judge Green's animosity and sarcasm toward Robinson. We recognize and endorse a trial judge's duty to control the courtroom, using reasonable measures to efficiently move matters along and keep over-zealous counsel in check. However, the professional obligations of dignity, respect and decorum is not limited to counsel. Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states, A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.