"And Dr. Orozco's opinion is a completely different opinion of what caused Mr. Khury's death, right?"

"Yes."

"Now, doctor, between your and Dr. Orozco, you think that your opinion is the correct one, don't you?"

Farraday smiled and said, "Of course it is." The jury caught his infectious smile. This guy was good.

"Move to strike as non-responsive, Your Honor."

"Granted."

"Could you please repeat the question?" Farraday knew full well what the question was. He just wanted to emphasize his innocence and impartiality.

"Yes. Between your opinion and Dr. Orozco's opinion, you think that your opinion is the right one, don't you?"

"I think that, within reasonable medical certainty that my opinion is correct and Dr. Orozco's is not correct, yes." That was not exactly an answer to the question, but Brent had to live with it. Still, it was worth a shot to try to put him in his place.

"Move to strike everything but "yes", Your Honor."

"Denied. Please continue, Mr. Marks."

"Isn't it also true, Dr. Farraday, that Dr. Orozco's opinion is based, in part, on the forensic evidence in the report from the autopsy you performed?"

Farraday paused for a moment. He didn't want to find himself checkmated. "He stated that his opinion was so based, yes."

"Move to strike as non-responsive, Your Honor."

"Granted. Please answer the question, doctor."

"Yes, his opinion appeared to be based, at least in part on the forensic evidence in my autopsy report."

"And it was also based on his own examination, correct?"

"Yes."

"And you did not perform a second autopsy on the body of Mr. Khury, did you?"

"There was no need."

"Move to strike as non-responsive, Your Honor."

"Granted, please answer the question, doctor."

"No I did not."

"So Dr. Orozco's opinion then, is based on your report as well as his own examination, and yours is based solely on your report, is that correct?"

"Objection! Compound and argumentative!" barked Nagel, weighing in on the game.

"Sustained."

No matter, thought Brent. The jury had heard the conclusion he made and some were nodding their heads in agreement.

The intellectual tug of war continued for about an hour, and Brent was careful to try to paint Farraday into a corner whenever he could, as opposed to allowing him to pontificate on how superior his opinion was to Dr. Orozco's. Nagel then went into redirect.

By that time, at least one member in the jury was nodding off, which signaled that their joint attention span was wearing thin and in serious need of a junk food recharge. Thankfully, within walking distance of the courthouse was the L.A. Mall, filled with a delectable choice of nutritious meals, from Carl's, Jr. to Quiznos. Brent and Rick settled on the less noxious California Pita.

Out of the corner of his eye, Brent saw Balls Anderson, sitting at a corner table.

"That little fucker is following us," he said to Rick.

"I'll go have a talk with him."

Rick got up, sauntered over to Balls' table, and sat down. Balls looked at him with those crazy eyes.

"Hello, sir."

"Hello, Balls." Balls looked surprised that someone knew his nickname.

"How do you know my nickname?"

"I'm an ex G-Man, Balls, nothing gets past me."

"What do you want?"

"We're trying to have a privileged conversation here. You're too close."

"It's a public place. I have the right to eat here, sir."

"Not if you're stalking us, you don't. You know what's up there?" Rick asked, pointing at the ceiling.

"What?"

"L.A.P.D. station. I wonder how fun your lunch would be if a couple of uniformed officers came down here to put you in a crime report. Does your command even know you're here?"

"I'm on leave."

"So, leave then." Rick signaled with his thumb for Balls to "hit the road." Balls got up, leaving his uneaten lunch on the table.

"This isn't over," he said, and walked away.

Punching his buttons may have not been the brightest thing to do, but Rick knew from experience that it was the only way to pop open a lead that wasn't leading anywhere. He just had to make sure to keep a keener eye on Brent. It looked like the timer on Balls' fuse had just been activated.

CHAPTER FIFTY-THREE.

Dr. Richard Lester's credentials as a clinical and forensic psychiatrist were beyond reproach. He held a PhD from Johns Hopkins University and an MD from Georgetown University School of Medicine, where he completed his internal medicine internship. He had completed his psychiatric residency at Johns Hopkins as well as a forensic psychiatry fellowship there.

Dr. Lester was a member of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and the American Medical Association. He had written numerous articles in psychiatric, medical and law review journals, and had testified in court as an expert many hundreds of times. Lester had served as a Professor at several East Coast universities and medical schools. He was a Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology with added qualifications in Forensic Psychiatry, and a Certified Forensic Physician with the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.

"Dr. Lester," asked Nagel. "Just to be clear, you have been hired by the defense and paid for being here today to give your testimony, haven't you?"

"Yes, I have."

"But doctor, in the many times you have testified in the past, has it always been for the defense?"

"Oh, no, I have testified for the plaintiff's side many times. Each case is different, and I am always called upon to give impartial testimony."

"How many of those cases that you testified would you estimate were plaintiff's cases?"

"About 35%."

Dr. Lester testified as to the reports he reviewed, including Dr. Ransen's report, which he disagreed with.

"Dr. Lester, as a result of your review, have you been able to formulate an opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, whether the conditions of detention of Ahmed Khury resulted in a mental condition that contributed to his suicide?"

"Yes. It is my opinion that Mr. Khury could not have developed such a mental condition as a result of the conditions of his detention alone."

"Why?"

"While it is true that long periods of solitary confinement, sensory deprivation and overstimulation may exacerbate certain psychic syndromes, Mr. Khury's medical history was devoid of any mental conditions that could have been worsened by those conditions. Further, his solitary confinement was of too short a period to cause any serious mental effects."

"Doctor, does the fact that Mr. Khury was not only subjected to sensory deprivation, but also long periods of sensory overstimulation affect your opinion?"

"No. While I agree with Dr. Ransen that there are studies on the effects of sensory overload on the mental state, the period of time that Mr. Khury was subjected to this as part of his behavioral modification program was not significant as to cause any such effects."

Dr. Lester explained, in detail, the pathology of suicide, and how it was not likely that anyone, even a psychiatrist, could have predicted or prevented Ahmed's suicide, based on the information that was available.

"Suicide is a complex behavior, influenced by multiple synaptic systems, the functioning of which can be permanently altered by experience. The expression of a suicidal thought is rather common among humans, and does not necessarily lead to an attempt. Still, the precautions that were taken in Mr. Khury's case were reasonable, given the fact that the only symptom was the expression of a suicidal thought, given his lack of a previous mental conditions and lack of previous attempts."

"In your opinion, doctor, could the type of treatment Mr. Khury experienced during his detention reasonably lead to uncontrollable impulses to commit suicide?"

"No, it could not."

"Dr. Lester, do you have an opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to whether a reasonable person would perceive Mr. Khury's treatment to create a danger to his medical condition?"

"Yes, I do. It is my opinion that a reasonable person would not perceive Mr. Khury's treatment to create any type of danger to his medical condition."

"Do you have an opinion as to whether the techniques used in the behavior modification program with Mr. Khury were used with deliberate indifference to his expressions of suicidal tendencies?"

"Yes. It is my opinion that the staff reacted reasonably in response to Mr. Khury's expressions and not with deliberate indifference."

Now that the jury was completely confused by conflicting testimonies from two different psychiatrists, Brent had the onerous job of cross-examination without confusing the jury even more.

CHAPTER FIFTY-FOUR.

If engaging Dr. Farraday was a challenge, then the cross-examination of Dr. Lester proved to be even more of one, as Brent had to avoid the pitfall of attacking the field of psychiatry itself and its lack of reliability.

In Brent's dues-paying days, he sometimes took on personal injury cases, something he would not do now even if his practice depended on it. About ten years ago, a new psychiatrist moved to Santa Barbara and began doing evaluations for some insurance companies. In Brent's analysis of his potential new personal injury clients, they fit one of three types: a group of people that had absolutely nothing wrong with them; a group of pathological liars, and a group that Brent was convinced had something very wrong with them. Brent figured that he either had a black hole above his office, sucking in all the bad clients and depositing them in his waiting room, or there was something seriously wrong with the doctor.

Since Brent was relying on his own psychiatrist to cross over the finish line in case the jury did not buy the death by force-feeding and cover-up scenario, he dared not attack the science of psychiatry itself. However, Rick had done a thorough background check on Dr. Lester, and had come up with a nice slam dunk for Brent. No chess game this time: Brent would trip up Lester with his own words.

"Dr. Lester, you testified that about 35% of the cases you testified were cases in which the plaintiff hired you, is that correct?"

"Yes."

"Would it surprise you, doctor, if that number were a lot lower?"

"Why, yes, it would."

"Your honor, I have marked for identification as Exhibit 77, a list of all the federal and state cases in which Dr. Lester has testified. Its companion, Exhibit 78, is a spread sheet, showing those cases in which Dr. Lester has been hired by the plaintiff, and those in which he was hired by the defendant."

"Objection, Your Honor, I have not been provided with a copy of these exhibits in discovery," said Nagel.

"Counsel, please approach the bench."

"Mr. Marks, why has the defense not been provided copies of these exhibits?" asked Henley.

"They are for impeachment, Your Honor. They weren't relevant until he testified today."

"What is your offer of proof?"

"Dr. Lester testified that 35% of his cases were plaintiff's cases. The real number is a little less than 2%."

"Your honor, this is not relevant. I move that the exhibits be excluded per rule 403. It's too prejudicial," said Nagel.

"Motion denied, Mr. Nagel. It shows possible bias."

"Dr. Lester, please examine Exhibits 77 and 78."

"Very well." Lester got out his reading glasses and looked through the exhibits. Then, he indicated he had finished his review.

"Dr. Lester, does Exhibit 77 appear to be a list of the federal and state cases in which you have testified?"

"The cases look familiar. I'm sure they are mine, but what I'm not sure of is whether it is a complete list."

"My investigator, Richard Penn, compiled this list from a complete record of all the cases you have ever testified in, be it federal or state courts, since the beginning of your practice. Would it surprise you that the percentage of plaintiff's cases in which you have testified is considerably less than 35%?"