Here's the response I would make:

Bad medical practice is a medical as well as a legal concept, so this is not a "purely" legal opinion. Rule 704 allows opinions that embrace the ultimate issues, as long as they are not purely legal.


The judge overrules the objection and continues:

Answer the question Mr. Witness, please. Would a nine (9) minute lapse in restoring the heart beat in and of itself be negligence?

A: In that small context I would have to say no?

Judge: Then you would say no, there's no negligence based on my question.

A: Given the limits of your question, that's correct.

Judge: Then doctors were not negligent. Thank you.

NOTE THAT THIS LAST QUESTION IS A LEGAL OPINION BECAUSE IT ASKS FOR A PURELY LEGAL CONCLUSION, WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT.

Electronic pop-quiz:

PROBLEM 9-1, p. 507.

What objection should the Defendant make. Please e-mail me at tanford@indiana.edu and give me the exact objection you would make if you were the defendant. Take your time, because phrasing this objection is harder than it appears..