George Pino Trial Update: The Best and Worst Moments of Cross-Examination

[00:00:00] Tony DeWitt: Laura Adams' cross-examination of Dr. Barrett was very interesting in that she did it much differently than I would have done it, but I still think she got some good points in. We'll take a look at that and criticize that in just a moment. Hi, Tony DeWitt here. Formerly, I was a Missouri attorney in active practice. Then I retired. Then I unretired and started a YouTube channel. And I bring you all kinds of stuff about trials and the law. So no legal advice is given, but stay tuned. This is what we're talking about today. Today, we're following the trial of Miami-area developer George Pino, who is charged with manslaughter and vessel homicide arising from a tragic Labor Day weekend boat crash in Biscayne Bay back in 2022. Prosecutors alleged that Pino was operating a 29-foot boat carrying his family and a group of teenage girls when he sped through a channel and slammed into a marked navigational aid throwing passengers into the water. 17-year-old Lucy Fernandez later died and another young woman suffered life-altering injuries. The defense maintains this was a terrible accident, not a crime, and disputes the state's allegations of recklessness. Let's get you caught up on what happened today. I've always said that the best cross-examinations are the ones where you train the witness to say yes. And you do that by giving them short questions, not long ones, short questions focused exclusively on one fact at a time. One fact at a time. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes conclusion. And unfortunately, nobody has taught her that tactic. It works particularly well with a doctor because the doctor will give you what he has to agree to or she in this case will have to agree to some things. For example, that blood is red, that, you know, oxygen gets into the body usually through the lungs. All those things they have to be able to give you because they're medical facts. They can't go against medical science. When you get into their opinions, then you can get into some disagreement. But generally speaking, if you're cross-examining a trial, you already know the answers to these things and you train the witness to say yes. And you turn their witness into your witness. That's the most effective way to cross-examine a medical witness. And unfortunately, that's not the approach she took. And I just think some of this just did not land. Some of it did. I thought some of it was very good, but some of it didn't land. So let's take a look at some of the things that I think could maybe have been done just a little bit better. [00:03:04] Speaker 2: Good afternoon. Let's start with this. You're here because you were hired by George Pino's law firm to be a consultant in this case, correct? Yes. Do you see George Pino in this courtroom? Yes. Can you please point to and identify an article of clothing so our record will be clear who we're talking about? [00:03:27] Speaker 3: He's wearing a light blue tie and a dark blue jacket. [00:03:34] Tony DeWitt: Okay. If you're sitting on the jury, you got to be tired of this schtick, right? Can you point to George Pino? Yeah. He's the guy over there sitting at the defense table. Give me a break, will you? I mean, everybody knows the guy who's on trial by now. And you think this lady who's examined him doesn't know that? It just, it gets boring and it's rote and it doesn't matter. The guy's been identified 16 times now. So what are you accomplishing by having him identified a 17th time? [00:04:05] Speaker 2: Do you remember when you were first contacted by the defense firm about this case? [00:04:12] Speaker 3: When I was first contacted? I don't remember the date I was first contacted, but I was retained, I believe in October of 2025. Okay. So that was September 22 to 23. So almost three years after this incident. That's fair to say, right? I guess the accident was on September 4th, 2022. [00:04:34] Tony DeWitt: Here's the way I would have done that. You were hired in October of 2025. Yes. Yes. [00:04:41] Speaker 4: The accident was in September of 2022. Yes. Yes. You interviewed him three years after the accident. Yes. You did not see him at the time of the accident. True or false? True. I didn't. You didn't treat him. Correct. [00:05:04] Tony DeWitt: And you established that all of these things are true before you get into the nuts and bolts of this, because time matters, particularly in a head injury. Someone will manifest symptoms immediately after that are diagnostic for a traumatic brain injury. But the problem is if you don't see them, you're relying on secondhand accounts. And you would get there, you would then get her to admit, you're relying on other people's observations. Correct? Yes. Other people like the deputies. Yes. Other people like the paramedics. Yes. You were hired by George Pino's law firm. Correct? Yes. You were hired as a consultant. Yes. You were hired to give opinions. Yes. You were hired to answer three questions. Yes. You accomplish all of that before you get into things that are, you know, questionable. So you train the witness to say yes to all of your questions. It's a psychological thing, but it absolutely works. [00:06:12] Speaker 2: Yes. And you first met with him on February 2nd of 2026. Yes. And you met with him a second time on March 9th of 2026. Correct? Yes. Those are the only times that you've seen him. Is that fair to say? Aside from here in court? [00:06:28] Speaker 3: In the courtroom, yes. Okay. Today. [00:06:32] Speaker 2: And when you were retained in this case, you were asked to do only three things. One, answer if he had a TBI, traumatic brain injury. Two, could it cause amnesia and false memories without the intent to deceive? And three, how long those false memories could persist? Correct? [00:06:54] Speaker 3: It's not the exact wording, but it's mostly correct, yes. And you constrained your work in this case [00:07:00] Speaker 2: to only answering those three questions. Isn't that true? Yes. And those questions came from the defense team, correct? Yes. [00:07:10] Tony DeWitt: Now, that was good. She's training her to say yes there. She did that very, very well. Let's see where she goes from there. [00:07:18] Speaker 2: Now, regarding the issue of a traumatic brain injury, you would agree that there is a spectrum of traumatic brain injuries from, say, like a football player who gets knocked out on the field, but then is able to recover and go right back out and play again. Or you could wind up with a traumatic brain injury that is so severe that it permanently disables an individual. That's fair to say about TBIs, right? I'm not sure if they're allowed to go right back into play. [00:07:48] Speaker 3: But I agree that there's a wide spectrum of presentations of traumatic brain injury. [00:07:52] Speaker 2: We don't want to get into the concussion protocols of the NFL, but clearly we understand that if a player is knocked unconscious, once they are reviewed by another doctor that might be at the stadium, if they pass the clearance, they can go right back that same day, right? [00:08:08] Speaker 3: I don't want to answer it. I don't do sports concussions on the field. [00:08:14] Tony DeWitt: I don't think it's intentionally so, but the fact of the matter is the NFL has tightened that up a lot in the last couple of years, simply because they got their pants suit off for all of the people walking around with TBIs who played in the NFL. [00:08:28] Speaker 2: At the end of the day, whether your head gets hit on the football field or your head gets hit on a boat, your head is hit, right? Yes, your head is hit. And so the type of responses that you can have if you have a traumatic brain injury, it can vary depending on the severity of the injury, right? [00:08:45] Speaker 3: It can depend on the severity of the injury. Some people are more vulnerable to injuries. Some people are much more resilient. So with the same injury, one person might get up and walk away and be fine and another might be permanently disabled. [00:09:00] Speaker 2: Okay. Now, you were asked to only look at these three questions that I have spoken with you about. At any point in your evaluation of this defendant, limited though it might be, do you have any evidence that he is suffering from dementia? [00:09:22] Speaker 3: I did not diagnose him with dementia. [00:09:25] Tony DeWitt: Well, the fact of the matter is she didn't diagnose him at all. She wasn't really working for him. She was working for the law firm. But be that as it may, he clearly doesn't have dementia. But that was a real smart catch on Laura's part because they brought that up or she brought that up spontaneously in the direct exam. [00:09:46] Speaker 2: Um, you're not a dentist, right? No. Um, you got the opportunity to look at some photographs of the defendant's teeth, right? Yes. Now they weren't broken, were they? They were chipped right at the top, right? [00:10:01] Tony DeWitt: Now this is one of those things that I think didn't land at all. And the reason I think it didn't land is because I really don't think that pretty much anybody understands the difference between chipped teeth and broken teeth. If my front tooth or my teeth in the front of my mouth got chipped, I would probably refer to them as broken too. So it's a distinction without a difference. And if we're measuring the impact of the trauma, broken teeth is an important finding. It just is. And whether you call them broken or chipped, it's a semantic difference. And hopefully the jury would understand that. [00:10:36] Speaker 2: I'm showing you defense exhibit A for E5. Do you recognize this exhibit? [00:10:51] Speaker 3: It's the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue. It's really hard for me to read, but yes, I believe elements of this are in Miami-Dade. [00:11:00] Speaker 2: And in fact, you listed in your report that you were given a Miami-Dade Fire Rescue report for the defendant from this incident, correct? [00:11:08] Speaker 3: Yes, it has four pages. [00:11:10] Speaker 2: And how many pages does exhibit A 35 have? [00:11:16] Speaker 3: No, I count five. [00:11:19] Speaker 2: Four pages for the report, right? One, two, three, four, and then just a final... [00:11:23] Speaker 3: Oh, this is just a certified copy. [00:11:25] Speaker 2: Right. So this is in fact the fire rescue report that you reviewed for this particular case, correct? [00:11:31] Speaker 3: I believe so. [00:11:32] Speaker 2: Okay, you're on that. This time I move A, defense A 35 into evidence as a state's exhibit. No objection. [00:11:40] Speaker 3: A 35 marked by D, state's exhibit 119. [00:11:46] Speaker 2: Let's go over some of the information on that report. Okay, which part? The font is really small. One, let me get my copy so I can... So first off, can you read for us what the narrative was of the fire rescue worker that treated George Pino on September 4th, 2022? On the first page in the middle. [00:12:16] Speaker 3: Okay. Narrative. Patient was the driver of a boat that struck a piling by Caesars Creek. Several people stated that he was unconscious. He denies any neck or back pain. Assessment revealed a laceration to his right elbow, laceration to his head, and hematoma to his right mid-axillary ribs. [00:12:43] Speaker 2: Now, let's talk about what it says about where the defendant was taken to. The defendant in this case was taken to Baptist Hospital, wasn't he? [00:13:02] Speaker 3: Disposition, hospital name, Baptist Hospital, my name. [00:13:06] Speaker 2: Now, Baptist Hospital, that, to your knowledge, is not a level one trauma center where he was brought, was it? [00:13:13] Speaker 3: I don't believe it is, but I haven't looked them up recently. [00:13:17] Tony DeWitt: I doubt that's going to matter because somebody on the jury will know whether it's level one trauma or not, and she wouldn't have said that if she didn't know that it's not a level one trauma center. [00:13:29] Speaker 2: On page two of this report, you'll see in the upper part of the page, there is a part that indicates that on September 4th, at 11:14, it's in military time, 23:14 and 0 hours, so about 11:14 under vitals. What does it say? [00:13:56] Speaker 3: I, four, opens eyes spontaneously, verbal, five, oriented, smiles, follows objects, interacts, motor, six, obeys commands, appropriate response to stimulation, total GCS, 15. [00:14:17] Speaker 2: GCS stands for Glasgow Coma Scale, doesn't it? Yes, it does. And it's an assessment of how alert and awake a patient might be, correct? Yes, and 15 is basically the highest level that you can have. Isn't that true? [00:14:31] Tony DeWitt: Now that right there is a very important finding, because the Glasgow Coma Score is widely recognized as a way you assess someone's cognitive status, their neuro status after an accident, and if they have diminished capacity, it shows up in a lower GCS. Well, in this case, GCS is at the top of the scale. So, because she's relying on all of the data that these people put together, she has to consider that in her opinion. And I don't think she did. The only problem is she doesn't nail it down enough. Watch. [00:15:07] Speaker 2: Now, you indicated in your testimony that the defendant gave some answers to Lieutenant Thompson when he was questioned at Elliott Key that were inaccurate. Let's go through those inaccuracies that you talked about. [00:15:25] Tony DeWitt: Now, it's about to get boring and tiresome here in just a second. And that's because she's going to go through not only the stuff that she claims that he got wrong, and then get her to accept her explanations of it, which she does very, very well. And then she's going to go and talk about all the things that George got right, which I guess could be an effective tool if you did it with about five of them. But she makes this way too long, and she extends her cross-examination too much at this point. So I have to take off a few marks for that right there. You don't want to bore the jury to death. You [00:16:04] Speaker 2: want to entertain them a little bit. Can you read this statement? Well, first off, let me ask you, would you consider a police officer asking a person to tell them what happened and then write down what happened? That's a two-step request from the officer, correct? Well, it's a two-step. If you ask them to do it, [00:16:28] Speaker 3: fall in a row. So you have to remember each step. So I might ask a patient, please pick up your right hand and use it to touch your left ear. And if they're confused, they might pick up their hand and then they forget what they're supposed to do. And they might later bring them to touch ear or not [00:16:42] Speaker 2: at all. But you said that you watched the video of Lieutenant Thompson interacting with your client, [00:16:47] Speaker 3: correct? The defendant. Yes. So you then must [00:16:58] Speaker 2: you must have seen Lieutenant Thompson talking with the defendant, seated up picnic table and asking him about what happened and to write it down on a written statement. Do you remember that? I think I do remember him writing something. And so that would be kind of a two-step request. Tell me [00:17:14] Tony DeWitt: what happened and then write it down. Now that's important because in a direct exam, she made reference to not being able to do this two-step process. And it's obvious that if you tell him to that's a two-step process, it's not the same as the process that she used in her example. But it's still a two-step process. So that was a good point. You did administer a test called the Montreal Cognitive [00:17:42] Speaker 2: Assessment Test, right? Yes. But that doesn't prove that he had amnesia, did it? [00:17:47] Speaker 3: That cannot prove that he had amnesia at the time of the injury. And in fact, the MRI for the defendant [00:17:53] Speaker 2: that was done on July 1st, that was normal for a man of this age, wasn't it? He did have some white [00:18:00] Speaker 3: matter lesions in his brain, which is not surprising for someone who has a history of high cholesterol [00:18:07] Speaker 2: untreated and someone for that age. Right. So it looked like a middle-aged man that might have high [00:18:13] Tony DeWitt: cholesterol, right? It could be. That's another mistake. She should have nailed her down on that. What do you mean it could be? You just said that. You just said it was normal for a man of his age. What's the deal? Why won't you commit to that? And force her to take a position on it because it shows that she's equivocating. You can't let her run. It's like fishing. You've got to take up the slack and keep her on the hook. And Laura's not doing that. And it's probably just because she's a nice person. But you have to do that if you're cross-examining a doctor. Otherwise, slippery little [00:18:56] Speaker 2: things will get away. Now, you've indicated that thus far you've been paid $29,200 for your work in this case. Yes. That does not include the fee that you're going to charge for being here and testifying [00:19:10] Tony DeWitt: today in court, does it? No, it doesn't. This was, I think, her most effective part of the cross examination. And she did it very well. And it illustrates just how much of a surface level examination this doctor did. And I'm going to end with that with no further comment. That's what I'll have for you today. Enjoy this last little segment. [00:19:34] Speaker 2: You did not ask how the accident occurred, even though you were trying to find out what he remembered of the events surrounding the accident, right? [00:19:44] Speaker 3: Well, I had that from the medical record. And he was starting to get very anxious and stressed. And there's only so many questions you can ask a patient before they end up not being able to function on the [00:20:01] Speaker 2: cognitive testing. So you never said to him, tell me how this crash happened? No, I did not. So you were evaluating his memory without asking him what he remembered, correct? [00:20:10] Speaker 3: I was evaluating his memory on the day that he presented to my office. Right. So you were evaluating [00:20:16] Speaker 2: his memory, but you didn't ask him what he remembered, did you? No, I relied on the records, [00:20:23] Speaker 3: the medical records and the Fish and Wildlife report and EMS records. So again, my question is, [00:20:29] Speaker 2: you were evaluating his memory, but you did not ask him what happened, did you? I'm asking you, if you can give me a straightforward answer. Did you ask, yes or no? I understand. But I'm sorry, let me ask the question again. Did you were evaluating the defendant's memory, but you did not ask him what he remembered of the crash, did you? [00:20:58] Speaker 3: I did not ask him all of the details. I started asking him, you know, how are you right before the crash and what happened after and he started to get very anxious. And so I stopped with that. OK, nothing else. [00:21:15] Tony DeWitt: Thanks for watching my video. I really appreciate it. And today, as you go about your business, would you try to do just one kind thing for somebody? It doesn't have to be a big thing. You can open a door for somebody who has their arms full. You could buy somebody a Coke. You could let the manager know when somebody did a really good job for you at the grocery store or at Walmart or someplace else. There are all kinds of things we can do to make people's lives better. And a lot of times, people will always remember to go to the manager and complain. They very seldom remember to go to the manager and say, hey, you know, that guy over there in produce is top notch. And I think it's really important to do that because I want to make the world a better place. I know you're here probably because you want to make the world a better place. So let's do that. Now, let's be respectful of one another. And thank God we live in the greatest country in the free world. I do think that the good folks at YouTube have a few things they want to show you up here that you might be interested in. And if you are, I'd appreciate you clicking. Thanks. Have a great day.