| Client Correspondence re Expert Testimony |
|
I am pleased to inform you that the jury in less than two hours of deliberation returned a defense verdict. I believe your extremely effective expert testimony was instrumental in persuading the jury . . . Timothy C. Davis; Clapp, Moroney, Bellagama, Davis & Vucinich; October 7, 1994 In talking to the jurors afterward, they felt that our presentation of the case was clear, simple and to the point. They felt that the visibility study, your testimony, and that of our other experts, was very helpful to them in understanding the issues and reaching the proper decision. Gregory J. Rockwell; Bornazian, Jensen & Garthe; February 11, 1992 Your testimony was important in persuading the jury of our position, and your cooperation in meeting with me and scheduling your testimony made my job that much easier. Our system demands much from litigants, judges, juries, attorneys and witnesses. Thank you so much for your participation. Without it, the system would not work. R. Ashley Cohn; Bertrand, Fox, Elliot & Cohn; August 24, 1992 Engineering photographer Paul Kayfetz testified in the DeHaven v. Fragomeni case, August 9, 1991 issue, Vol. 35, No. 32. Mr. Kayfetz testified at an evidentiary hearing that the plaintiff's videotape of the accident scene did not show lighting conditions similar to those that existed on the night of the incident. Based on this testimony, Judge Richard Bartalini excluded from evidence the videotape offered by plaintiff. David M. McLaughlin; Ropers, Majeski et al.; October 9, 1991; [Writing to Jury Verdicts Weekly] |
[From Jury Verdicts Weekly]:
Plaintiff attorneys further wrote that it should be noted that the testimony of these two witnesses was severely impeached by Mr. Kayfetz, who did the visibility study of the area and testified unequivocally that they could not have seen the boy raise his arm from where they were seated in the Camaro; that they had given prior inconsistent statements as to exactly where their vehicle was when the shooting started; and that the photographs taken by Mr. Kayfetz in his investigation indicated that the officers could not have seen what they alleged in their testimony. Demand, according to the defendant attorneys, $150,000. Offer $60,000. Plaintiff Verdict $500,000 (Wrongful Death). Plaintiff Verdict $550,000 (Civil Rights). Case Settled for Verdict Plus Attorneys' Fees. October 15, 1984. I want to sincerely thank you for your testimony with regard to the above case. Your expertise and opinions were totally accepted by the jury and were extremely helpful in the presentation of our case. It is interesting to note that the defense attorney went out of his way in other testimony and argument to try and refute your opinion since it's obvious he felt your visibility study was extremely harmful to his case. J. Gary Gwilliam October 20, 1984 I declared you as an expert and I was able to settle this case for $1,000,000.00. It seems that you did a number on him up in Tahoe and the threat of your presence made him much more realistic in his settlement demands. Rex T. Kearney, Jr. September 27, 1982 Thank you for your extraordinary, professional services in assisting me to prepare this case for trial. The numerous trips you were required to make to shuttle both yourself and the films for processing and ultimate presentation in court were very much appreciated. Clyde A. Thompson October 28, 1980 |
|
Menu Page | CV | Fee Schedule | Services Provided | Contact Info