Opinion ID: 1206745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the trial court err in allowing defendants to call an expert witness out of time?

Text: This trial started on a Monday. At 2:20 P.M. on the following Friday the defendants approached the trial judge with a request to call a defense witness out of time. The witness was Dr. R, a cleft palate specialist from Philadelphia, who had been scheduled for Friday afternoon by defendants' counsel. Defendants' counsel had projected that plaintiffs would have rested by then. In fact plaintiffs had not rested, and still had one more deposition to read to the jury. Plaintiffs' counsel objected to the interruption, and subpoenaed the doctor himself for the following Monday morning. Defendant represented to the court that the doctor, essential to their case, could only be available for testimony that afternoon, and then had to return to the east coast. The Court allowed the witness to be called out of time, with appropriate explanation to the jury. Although not waiving his objection, plaintiffs' counsel said: Mr. Norman: We want to request as much time for cross as used in the direct. The Court: I'm not allotting any amount of time. You use it at your own discretion. (Tr. P. 692) At the conclusion of direct, cross, redirect, recross, and more recross examination, the court said: The Court: Are you finished with the witness? Mr. Norman: Yes, I'm finished. (Tr. P. 762) We have held that the order in which proof is introduced at trial rests very much within the discretion of the trial court, and unless it clearly appears that this discretion has been abused to the injury of the complaining party, a judgment will not be reversed on this ground. [10] Plaintiff claims prejudice by not being able to cross-examine Dr. R. after he had placed in evidence the final deposition, but he fails to demonstrate how he was so prejudiced. Plaintiff's counsel requested equal time for cross-examination. The record indicates direct and redirect consumed 24 pages of transcript, while cross and recross took 45. Trial judge noted the cross-exam was very exhaustive. (Tr. 764) The court did not cut off cross-examination, but rather counsel said Yes, I'm finished. We find no prejudice to have resulted in either allowing the witness to testify out of time or in failing to order the doctor to return for further cross-examination Monday morning. [11]