# Flynn v. Edmonds

> Appellate Court of Illinois · October 29, 1992 · 236 Ill. App. 3d 770

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735434

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN J. FLYNN, JR., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANDRE EDMONDS, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** October 29, 1992
- **Citations:** 236 Ill. App. 3d 770; 176 Ill. Dec. 934; 602 N.E.2d 880; 1992 Ill. App. LEXIS 1749
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Steigmann
- **Judges:** Lund, Steigmann
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735434

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing a rale of professional conduct requiring a lawyer to “promptly” reveal a fraud to the tribunal where the lawyer “knows that a person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal,” and holding that the rule “does not require an attorney to disclose t…

## Opinion text

JUSTICE STEIGMANN, specially concurring:
Although I agree with the result the majority reached, I do not agree with its delicate handling of the perjury of plaintiffs’ expert witness. The majority is much too grudging in concluding that defense counsel appropriately handled this liar. In my view, defense counsel did everything exactly right, and he should receive our congratulations without reservation.
The majority correctly points out that “[tjrials are an attempt to get to the truth of contested matters.” (236 Ill. App. 3d at 785.) However, exposing perjurers in the courtroom is at least as important to the process of seeking the truth as is the presentation of truthful witnesses. Indeed, it may be even more important because of the institutional benefits that result: (1) liars might be deterred from taking the oath and perjuring themselves in open court; and (2) lawyers might more carefully select and investigate the witnesses they intend to put on the stand, so as to avoid the devastating consequences of calling a witness whose perjury is demonstrated before the jury.
Given the concerns of everyone involved in both civil and criminal cases about the frequency of perjury from the witness stand, I view the events in this case — and the predictable result — as nothing short of wonderful, and I am unwilling to join in any opinion that suggests any merit to the plaintiffs’ whining.
Additionally, I disagree with the majority’s emphasizing that defense counsel’s cross-examination had already made inroads into the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witness before his perjury was demonstrated. The majority’s emphasis suggests that had the expert witness’ credibility not already been damaged, our assessment regarding his perjury might be different. In my judgment, revealing the expert witness’ perjury is even more important if his testimony had been very helpful to the plaintiffs and few harmful inroads had been made by defendant.
Other than as indicated, I concur fully with the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735434. Public record. Not legal advice.