The funny thing is that the lawyer tries to discredit Diffie by trying to present prior art. He was trying to shift focus away from the case and into attacking the witness by presenting prior art to the prior art. Kind of a moot move.
I was a juror on a (6 week long) product liability lawsuit this past summer, and it came out that despite the fact that an expert witness for the plaintiff asked to see punch biopsies to check for neuropathy in the supposedly injured leg with a control sample from the other leg, the plaintiff's lawyers only sent him the punch biopsy from the leg claimed to be injured. When this came out the plaintiff's lawyers claimed they did this because they wanted it to a be a "blind study". I almost wtfed out of my chair.
It was pretty clear to anyone with half a brain that the plaintiff had no actual case and the issue he was suffering from was related to preexisting degenerative arthritis and nothing to do with the product that supposedly injured his knee, but sadly based on nothing more than emotional manipulation by his (very good) lawyers of the jury he came very close to winning (ultimately it was a hung jury, but the majority of votes were in plaintiff's favor).
Sadly, people are right to doubt the fact that many of the jurors have the context to value Diffie's testimony over the plaintiff's expert witnesses in this case.
