MovieChat Forums > The Verdict (1982) Discussion > Galvin had no case really. Not much of a...

Galvin had no case really. Not much of a summation either.


Galvin was left with no case. His expert testimony from the doctor was brief and cut short by the cooked judge who angrily acts as a lawyer for the defense.

Then Kaitlan's testimony and copy of the admittance form are not allowed.

So what then?

All Galvin really had was the reality that this young woman was in a coma and should not have been had she received proper medical care. The jury can have a gut belief that she was owned something. Ok but in his summation he does not mention the victim or the family. Just some trite comment about faith.

Now being on the jury it could have been obvious that these very powerful people supported by a crooked judge and an army of lawyers vs this one victim and her few advocates. I guess that is why he won.

reply

Galvin's entire summation was essentially a wink-wink instruction to the jury to ignore the law and the judge's ruling on the nurse's evidence. Of course, we as the viewers know the jury was right in the end, but in reality the guilty doctor would've had a very good case for appeal. This film would've been better if the final, happy verdict didn't rely on the jury ignoring the law. That can work in the unrighteous direction too.

reply

Galvin's entire summation was essentially a wink-wink instruction to the jury to ignore the law and the judge's ruling on the nurse's evidence. Of course, we as the viewers know the jury was right in the end, but in reality the guilty doctor would've had a very good case for appeal. This film would've been better if the final, happy verdict didn't rely on the jury ignoring the law. That can work in the unrighteous direction too.

---

I loved The Verdict when I saw it in 1982. And the audience sure did. The applause and cheers at crucial points in the final trial(particularly when nurse Caitlin Costello Price arrived to rout the villains and save the day) made for a great night at the movies. Paul Newman's performance was one of his greatest -- he LIVED that role, start to finish.

I was with it all the way and I waited eagerly for Newman's summation and closing argument. And as he said it all , I was rather stunned -- that's it? That's all? He didn't discuss the facts of the case or try to make his case one final time. He just made this long, impassioned, somewhat haunted and DEFINITELY "Oscar bait monologue" kind of speech about justice and God and prayer and the jury's powerful role in the process(hey this was directed by Sidney Lumet, who directed 12 Angry Men, too).

In any event, the happy ending arrives anyway. The plaintiffs win and -- in a great touch -- the jury foreman asks if MORE money can be awarded than asked for the ruination of a pregnant woman.

With regard to the summation, I suppose Galvin knew this: the testimony of nurse Caitlin had been ruled inadmissible, he couldn't use it or refer to it (as his buddy murmured during the judge's ruling, "legally, he's right.") So he pretty much had nothing to talk about except maybe hitting hard in GENERAL on negligence. So he pulled out a righteous speech based on his OWN coming to Jesus moment -- his redemption, his hope that - after years of being betrayed by crooks and oppressed by bigger adversaries -- justice would prevail.

It was a nice sentiment.

Its been written elsewhere here that in a re-trial, nurse Caitlin could be brought in not as a surprise and testimony about an original document might not have been thrown out if placed in "argument context." But that's if a re-trial were granted. On appeal, they'd be looking at the judge's actions during the case. He probably screwed up more earlier(when he asked the expert doctor a question and declared no negligence) and the appeal might have failed.

Who knows? The case was won for the day. And likely would have been remanded on appeal even if the defendants prevailed.

reply

A lot of errors were made in this case and I am pretty sure the verdict would be overturned in appeal.

Just allowing an unannounced witness to testify is bad enough. But allowing the jury to hear her testimony with evidence and information that the defendants were unaware of was a horrendous mistake. A simple Jury instruction like the one given was not enough. Even the Judge admitted that he shouldn’t have allowed that testimony. This is something that should’ve been discussed and ruled upon without the Jury present.

Just, in general, this case was a mess. Discovery was virtually non-existent. No depositions were taken before the trial. The missing doctor should’ve been cause enough for a continuance.

reply