Paul Geragos was an outstanding criminal defense lawyer, highly respected by his peers as well as the LA Bench and Bar When lawyers presented a set of jury instructions to a judge for the purpose of reading the law to the Jury, Paul was behind the wording based on having been selected to be on the commission that approves the content of the material selected, quite an honor.
I first met Paul when he and I joined the LA DA’s office in 1956 as young prosecutors. We traveled the same route of advancement to the rank of calendar deputies and, after several years, established defense practices, he in LA and I in Orange County. We developed a lasting friendship and shared cased in our respective counties, and, on occasion, represented individual co-defendants. Paul developed a very good practice, including many members of his Armenian church, in which he was very involved. Paul has two sons, Mathew, who did civil cases for the firm, and Mark, who developed into a nationally-recognized criminal defense attorney as the firm grew in stature.
Doctor G was a very successful orthopedic surgeon. Among his activities was being an expert witness. He would be hired by personal defense attorneys to examine accident victims, submit reports, give depositions, and, at times, testify in court to the type and extent, as well as the prognosis of an accident victim. Needless to say, insurance companies and their lawyers defending the lawsuits and cases had a particular grudge against Doctor G, and would, with their clout, like nothing better than to shut down Doctor G. They got their chance based on an insurance investigation, coupled with the LA DA investigation team who interviewed claimants who revealed that they had not been examined by Doctor G, but his physician’s assistant and the reports submitted in all states that Dr G did the exam. So, a criminal complaint was filed, charging Dr. G with 14 felony counts of insurance fraud and Dr. G’s assistant was charged as a co-defendant conspirator, very serious charges that not only threatened the good doctor with prison exposure, but, in addition, the loss of the right to practice medicine, which was based on an action by the state medical association in a separate proceeding.
Somehow Dr G was referred to me and I recommended Paul to represent the assistant. This brings up the complicated problem of conflict of interest; when an accused either agrees to be represented by the same attorneys who represent one or more of the other defendants in the same investigation an automatic conflict of interest exists. The reason is obvious: one cannot argue for one, comparing, if nothing else, the degree of culpability as an example, or trying to deal the case by cooperating with the prosecution and testifying for the prosecution. and testifying for the prosecution. Sometimes a husband and wife are charged jointly, but a conflict is just automatic. I never represent co-defendants; it just is going to lead to ethical problems down the road. Conflicts can arise in cases in which one client is paying the fees for two or more charged. In those cases, a special contract is created outlining the conflict and referring the issue to an independent lawyer to advise the accused of the conflict, leaving the knowledgeable client a free choice to accept or reject the attorney who is being paid by a co-defendant. for two or more charged.
That’s what happened in Dr. G’s case and it worked out just fine.
The trial proceeded with my representing the doctor and, on my recommendation, Paul Geragos represented the assistant.
I have often wondered what the prosecution is thinking when they have a strong case- why they would stupidly try to get cute destroying their credibility and suffer a not guilty verdict on a case they should never have lost. That is what happened in Dr. G.’s case.
Basically the trial begins with each side making an opening statement outlining what they expect the evidence to reveal. In Dr. G’s case, the DA outlined her case, basically telling the jury her witnesses would testify that they never were examined and that the assistant did all the reports of injury, but the insurance company paid for the examination, believing Dr G did it all, and paid for the exams at the doctor’s rate. My defense was that every exam was reviewed by Dr G and the reports were based on his personal review of the exam, and that is what I told the jury. There was a problem because earlier Dr G had testified in a civil case deposition that he did not remember consulting his assistant regarding the exams.
Case goes to trial and the DA’s is presented as expected. Pal calls the assistant who lays out his part and the fact that Dr G reviewed every case with him. When it came to my turn, I simply said no further evidence, and we rest on the evidence presented. The DA went bonkers and asked to reopen to present the deposition testimony. I objected on the grounds that it should have been presented in her case, otherwise she would be sandbagging, which was against the rules. My objection was sustained and the jury acquitted both defendants of all counts. My point is, like in many cases, I find that when a litigator gets too cute, hoping to slam home their case in rebuttal, it often backfires, as it did in this case, costing the DA a real shot at conviction, where she expected me to call my client and would try to destroy him on cross exam.
I never employed those stupid games.
Marshall
MarshallsKnowledge© 