Legal Memorandum

MEMORANDUM

To: Lee Snyder, CEO of Metropolitan Memorial Hospital

Date: June 6, 2006

Re: Trial Expectations

Mr. Snyder, on the 13th day of June 2006, at 9:00 a.m. we are to appear in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Ford County, Illinois for the trial of Mr. Justin King. I am writing you this letter to inform you of the process and procedures to expect when this case goes to trial.

The first thing to expect is the jury selection. The clerk of the court, after directed by the judge, will bring twenty or more potential jurors in to the courtroom. At that time twelve of those potential jurors also referred to as panel members will take a seat in the juror box. Mr. King's attorney as well as Mr. Harding will address each panel member by asking each one questions to help them determine whether they would like them to sit on the jury panel at trial or have them dismissed. If Mr. Harding finds that one of the panel members has recently been the victim of an accident that left them disfigured then he might use one of his peremptory challenges to have that panel member dismissed.

There are two ways that both Mr. King's attorney and Mr. Harding can have panel members dismissed and they are challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause is 1) where actual bias exists meaning that a panel member acknowledges that they can not be fair or knows a party involved in the case; 2) Implied bias is where one of the panel members is related to one of the parties or the attorneys in this particular case. The court will excuse those panel members even if they feel they can make a fair decision. Peremptory challenges allow both Mr. King's attorney and Mr. Harding to remove three panel members without expressing reason. After the jury selection is complete the judge will give the jurors preliminary instructions meaning they will be sworn to follow the courts orders and the law. The judge will tell the panel members what is expected of them during the trial process.

When the actual trial begins the attorney for Mr. King will start by making an opening statement to the jurors. The opening statement is used to help the jurors understand what is going to be presented during the trial. An opening statement will not contain any argumentative material, but rather what they plan on presenting and proving during the trial. Once that is completed Mr. Harding may give his opening statement to the jurors or wait until Mr. King's attorney has presented all of their evidence and have come to rest.

Because Mr. King has brought forth the claim his attorney has the burden of proof to present all of their evidence first. After we present our evidence Mr. King's attorney can present rebuttal evidence to challenge or contradict what we have presented. After Mr. King's attorney has completed questioning of a witness Mr. Harding has the right to cross-examine that witness and try to discredit their statements. Please keep in mind that this works in the same way for Mr. King's side.

During witness testimony both sides have the right to object to evidence or statements that are made by witnesses that the opposing attorney feels are not relevant to the case or are misleading. If the judge sustains the objection then the jury is instructed to disregard that particular statement. If the objection is overruled the statement stays on record.

If Mr. King and his attorney fail to establish their case then we will move the courts for a dismissal. At that time the courts will evaluate whether Mr. King and his attorney have established each element of their cause of action. If the courts conclude that they have not established each element of their cause of action then the case is over. However, if the court establishes that the elements of their case have been met and both sides have come to rest the evidence phase of the trial is over. It is at that time that both sides will present their final arguments.

Final arguments are given first by Mr. Kings attorney and then by Mr. Harding. Final arguments are meant to sum up what each side presented during trial. Each side can present a theory as to what happened and why it happened. They may also go back over the evidence