As we see it, the key to the proper administration of such a rule is the trial judge, clothed as he is, with a broad discretion in resolving questions arising during a trial. should contain the names and addresses of all persons who, within reason, a party might call as a witness, be they for impeachment, corroboration or to adduce substantive proof, and regardless of the part of the trial in which they might appear. Noting considerable confusion in the case law regarding pretrial disclosure of witnesses' names, the district court relied on the spirit of the discovery rules to suggest that King Pest Control successfully appealed the trial court's action to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, obtaining a reversal of the Bingers' judgment and a remand for a new trial. Following Murrow's testimony at trial, the Bingers sought to introduce the testimony of their own expert to impeach Murrow, and over King Pest Control's objection they were permitted to do so. The Bingers did not identify their expert for King Pest Control, however. The Bingers took Murrow's deposition approximately four days before trial and subjected it to scrutiny by their own privately-retained expert. Over a month before trial, King Pest Control filed an amended pretrial catalog naming as a witness Burton Murrow, an accident reconstruction expert. Both parties complied with this order, and the Bingers not only specifically listed their primary witnesses but advised that they would call to testify "any and all necessary" impeachment or rebuttal witnesses. The detailed facts of this dispute, which are amplified in the district court's opinion, begin with a pretrial order requiring each party to exchange witness lists at least 20 days prior to trial. The situation which brings us the conflict arose when the Bingers were permitted to present at trial the testimony of an impeachment witness whose identity had not previously been disclosed to King Pest Control. 3d DCA 1979) Hartstone Concrete Products Co. In this civil proceeding, we endeavor to reconcile conflicting district court decisions regarding the effect of a pretrial failure to disclose the names of witnesses. Gaines, Miami, for petitioners.Ĭarey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard, Fort Lauderdale, and Edna L. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Harry A. ![]() Robert Dennis BINGER, et Ux., Petitioners,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |