Court Opinion

ID: 9741756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:01:25.04102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.939747
License: Public Domain

Ryan, J.
(dissenting). I do not share my colleagues’ conviction that either defense counsel’s cross-examination of Dr. Kaplan or Dr. Chodoff or counsel’s argument in summation to the jury warrant setting aside the jury’s verdict in this case.
The probing and challenging cross-examination of Drs. Kaplan and Chodoff failed to produce evidence of "a conspiracy * * * to render untrue and collusive testimony”, which apparently was counsel’s purpose. That the effort failed, however, does not constitute it improper cross-examination or establish grounds for mistrial.
*356Similarly, defense counsel’s argument to the jury concerning the testimony of Drs. Kaplan, Chodoff and Edeiken while of doubtful legitimacy in referring to the witnesses as "those three cohorts” and bearing insinuations of debatable accuracy was not on the whole so devoid of evidentiary support as to constitute prejudicial unfairness toward the plaintiffs.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals.
Coleman, J., concurred with Ryan, J.