Boytwnmom
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 297
and that wasn't the only court that had some choice words for him. The case you cited-his testimony about the father being an abuser-the court found him lacking any credibility and awarded the father full custody and made the mother pay his attorney fees.
Kind of like this case. The mother was a liar and he accepted and adopted her lies, performed no adequate evaluation and simply parroted what the liar wanted him to and concluded the poor father who he never interviewed was an abuser, because the liar said so. Because his conduct was so egregious and unprofessional it wasn't like he actually accomplished anything for the liar. Let's hope this jury is as savy as the judge in that court obviously was.
I think everyone clearly has his #. He is a hired gun, biased, lacks credibility, does shoddy work and devotes most of his time to testifying for liars and the guilty. Sounds perfect for Jodi and her pals.
Kind of like this case. The mother was a liar and he accepted and adopted her lies, performed no adequate evaluation and simply parroted what the liar wanted him to and concluded the poor father who he never interviewed was an abuser, because the liar said so. Because his conduct was so egregious and unprofessional it wasn't like he actually accomplished anything for the liar. Let's hope this jury is as savy as the judge in that court obviously was.
I think everyone clearly has his #. He is a hired gun, biased, lacks credibility, does shoddy work and devotes most of his time to testifying for liars and the guilty. Sounds perfect for Jodi and her pals.
Are you referring to the discovery sanction in the O'Rourke case? If so, that sanction was against the Mother for failing to timely disclose Geffner's information. The trial court did refer to his as a "hired gun" and had some other choice words, but did not sanction him personally. It merely limited the scope of his trial testimony to the two affidavits he'd submitted.
~quote from the link
Mother objects to the discovery sanction that limited the testimony of her expert witness, Dr. Robert Geffner, whom she describes as "a psychologist and preeminent nationally acclaimed authority on domestic violence." Setting aside the question of Dr. Geffner's credentials, we note that the trial court imposed the sanction because of Mother's failure to participate in the discovery process in good faith.
Father submitted interrogatories asking Mother to reveal the identity of all the experts she intended to call upon and the issues each would be testifying about. Mother first spoke to Dr. Geffner early in November of 2006. On December 31, 2006, she first provided his name and his CV to Father's attorney, but no other information, thereby making it difficult or impossible to obtain a timely deposition from him. The trial court found that Mother and/or her attorney consistently procrastinated in responding to discovery requests, that they withheld information from Father in an attempt to gain an advantage over him, and that the delay over Dr. Geffner's opinions was just the latest example of that tactic.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...2801.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7