13 Year old gir declared brain dead has now officially died

[richmond282]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=27001-28000&file=27490-27512

If I am reading the code correctly, the family can opt out of an autopsy by the coroner "for religious reasons". I since we are not talking about a crime, I don't know that the coroner would be terribly interested in pursuing an autopsy over the family's objections.

And, if the information I previously posted is correct, they can take the body home and have a funeral without involving a funeral home. they'd have to get the appropriate paperwork form a cemetery or crematory, but they could do the whole funeral themselves.

It will be awfully difficult for them to prove cause of death for their malpractice lawsuit w/o an autopsy though.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

It will be awfully difficult for them to prove cause of death for their malpractice lawsuit w/o an autopsy though.

Actually, not. Having an autopsy on a deceased patient is useful, but not essential.

How do you prove malpractice in a living patient? By reviewing medical records and the testimony of witnesses.

And by now the body has degraded. I'm no medical expert, and I know that bodies are occasionally disinterred for autopsy long after death and burial, but I suspect it's much harder to determine a cause of death the longer it takes to do the autopsy.

 

[richmond282]

Actually, not. Having an autopsy on a deceased patient is useful, but not essential.

How do you prove malpractice in a living patient? By reviewing medical records and the testimony of witnesses.

And by now the body has degraded. I'm no medical expert, and I know that bodies are occasionally disinterred for autopsy long after death and burial, but I suspect it's much harder to determine a cause of death the longer it takes to do the autopsy.

If this thing ever went to trial and I was a juror, I'd want to hear about an autopsy plain and simple.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

If this thing ever went to trial and I was a juror, I'd want to hear about an autopsy plain and simple.

You, as a juror, would hear only the evidence that the judge permitted to be entered into the record. And you, as a juror, would receive instructions from the court as to whether you could make a negative inference as a result of lack of an autopsy. And then you, as a juror, would be required to make a decision on liability based on the evidence presented, not on your speculation as to why an autopsy was not performed or what the results of that autopsy would be.

 

[JanaDee]

If this thing ever went to trial and I was a juror, I'd want to hear about an autopsy plain and simple.

Me too. And I'd find it suspect if the family 'opted out' of one.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Me too. And I'd find it suspect if the family 'opted out' of one.

Glqad you told us you can't follow the law. You're excused for cause. Thank you for your service.

 

[JanaDee]

Glqad you told us you can't follow the law. You're excused for cause. Thank you for your service.

The court doesn't control what jurors think.

There is a difference between what potential jurors really think and what the "right" answers are to get on a jury.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

The court doesn't control what jurors think.

There is a difference between what potential jurors really think and what the "right" answers are to get on a jury.

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

 

[CPT Tripss]

The court doesn't control what jurors think.

There is a difference between what potential jurors really think and what the "right" answers are to get on a jury.

Are you saying you would lie during jury selection?

 

[phorsenuf]

You, as a juror, would hear only the evidence that the judge permitted to be entered into the record. And you, as a juror, would receive instructions from the court as to whether you could make a negative inference as a result of lack of an autopsy. And then you, as a juror, would be required to make a decision on liability based on the evidence presented, not on your speculation as to why an autopsy was not performed or what the results of that autopsy would be.

Well even with what was presented I would still have reasonable doubt without an autopsy to prove anything. I would wonder why the family didn't want one and what they may have been trying to hide. How could anyone not?

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Well even with what was presented I would still have reasonable doubt without an autopsy to prove anything. I would wonder why the family didn't want one and what they may have been trying to hide. How could anyone not?

"Reasonable doubt" is a criminal standard of proof. In a civil matter it's a lesser standard, "preponderance of the evidence."

 

[Handbag Lady]

Having been a juror previously, if it didn't come up during the trial, I would ask the judge about it via the bailiff. I've asked questions before and I'd gladly do it again.

Granted, they don't have to answer, but at the very least, it would more than likely let the judge know what I was thinking and he or she would more than likely add instructions.

At my last trial, there was one minor oversight so I asked about it. The judge addressed my question and it was answered by the defendant.

 

[phorsenuf]

"Reasonable doubt" is a criminal standard of proof. In a civil matter it's a lesser standard, "preponderance of the evidence."

Whatever. You're a lawyer, we get it. We have opinions and really don't need them dismissed or corrected because you know the law. If you want to have a legal discussion to the letter of the law about this case, go start another thread. I'm pretty sure most of us just want to have a conversation about this situation.

 

[cabanafrau]

"Reasonable doubt" is a criminal standard of proof. In a civil matter it's a lesser standard, "preponderance of the evidence."

It's absolutely easier to merely have to push the needle to 51% as opposed to the 99.9% standard called for by reasonable doubt. However everything is going to be measured under the standard of care and standard of practice of each and every procedure throughout the case. I see little likelihood to dismiss the standard of care in determining cause of death by excluding even the discussion of an autopsy being performed. Who's the expert witness who will come in to testify as to what caused this girl's death -- a pathologist. Pretty tough for a pathologist to come in and testify in the absence of an autopsy.

Granted, hired guns a plenty abound in the pathology field and they come in to testify all the time without having performed an autopsy -- by relying on the one done by the local ME and concurring/disputing the conclusions and the testing performed or not performed as the case may be. There will be no way for the family to submit to a private autopsy only, excluding the hospital from having one of their own done.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Whatever. You're a lawyer, we get it. We have opinions and really don't need them dismissed or corrected because you know the law. If you want to have a legal discussion to the letter of the law about this case, go start another thread. I'm pretty sure most of us just want to have a conversation about this situation.

You can have opinions about this matter, about what's right and what's wrong.


When someone says what they would do as a juror, and it's based on factual misinformation, I will correct factual misinformation.

Personally, I would love to see the results of an autopsy. I would love to see the documents that the court ordered sealed that deal with the cause of Jahi's bleeding/heart attack. I have lots of suspicions about what happened.

My prurient interest notwithstanding, if I were sitting in a court room, I would understand that some information was withheld from me for reasons I might not understand. and if I were on the jury (which is never going to happen -- no rational attorney would put me on a jury) I'd be compelled to follow the law in coming to a decision.

I have seen many cases where information was withheld from the jury. Honestly, though, jurors tend to come to the right decision based on what they know, not what they speculate despite missing information.

 

[Disney Doll]

Whatever. You're a lawyer, we get it. We have opinions and really don't need them dismissed or corrected because you know the law. If you want to have a legal discussion to the letter of the law about this case, go start another thread. I'm pretty sure most of us just want to have a conversation about this situation.

Speak for yourself. I actually like Lorelei lees posts because they provide good information.

 

[Viva Las Disney]

Me too. And I'd find it suspect if the family 'opted out' of one.

I'd be suspect too, how do you prove a hospital caused the death of a family member without an autopsy describing what caused the death? It's only one piece of evidence but it's a big piece and I'd be curious if I was on the jury. If they still had solid evidence I could overlook the lack of an autopsy but if I was undecided it would be enough to influence me to vote not guilty, I'd rather let them off or have a hung jury than punish someone that I don't think was shown to be in the wrong.

Glqad you told us you can't follow the law. You're excused for cause. Thank you for your service.

Would this come out in jury screening? I've never been in a jury selection process but do they ask specific question like would the lack of an autopsy influence your decision?

 

[okeydokey]

Every juror weighs what is presented against their own life experiences. They can agree to take in all evidence and swear they will make an informed decision based only on what is presented, but people are not robots, and their own feelings will creep in there.

I too would wonder why the family didn't want the autopsy done if they refused to allow one. I am sure hat most people would.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I'd be suspect too, how do you prove a hospital caused the death of a family member without an autopsy describing what caused the death? It's only one piece of evidence but it's a big piece and I'd be curious if I was on the jury. If they still had solid evidence I could overlook the lack of an autopsy but if I was undecided it would be enough to influence me to vote not guilty, I'd rather let them off or have a hung jury than punish someone that I don't think was shown to be in the wrong. Would this come out in jury screening? I've never been in a jury selection process but do they ask specific question like would the lack of an autopsy influence your decision?

They could ask those questions. Having served on a jury and gone through the selection process quite a few times, they ask all sorts of questions, and not all even make sense/seem related at the time. DH just went through this and was dismissed because of the ages of our children, which is a question he was asked. My guess is it was a crime against a young child, but I don't know.

ETA: They will also instruct you over & over again that you can only consider the evidence you've heard in court and nothing outside of it or your own opinions of the events that may have taken place.

 

[JanaDee]

Every juror weighs what is presented against their own life experiences. They can agree to take in all evidence and swear they will make an informed decision based only on what is presented, but people are not robots, and their own feelings will creep in there.

I too would wonder why the family didn't want the autopsy done if they refused to allow one. I am sure hat most people would.

The judge and lawyers don't get to control what jurors think.