by Thomas Gagné | Apr 8, 2020 | Lectures
A lecture by Thomas Gagne, Esq.
Hello. My name is Thomas Gagne. I am a personal injury attorney from the Greenville Spartanburg area, and I’ve tried civil as well as criminal cases for the last 27 years. I begin my career as a prosecutor for the United States Army, where I served three years active duty in five years reserve duty. During that time also tried administrative cases as a defense attorney. I also worked as a county prosecutor for Richland and York counties as Assistant Solicitor.
For the last 19 months you have been helping your team leader with discovery. You feel ready to take the lead on a case, and today is the day you get your wish. Marcus Jones, your client, injured himself while within the scope of his employment with North American Security Services at a Boeing plant. He suffered several injuries and had to undergo surgery on both his knees. One of his knees required complete replacement. You have finished the workers compensation claim, and you’re ready to proceed with the third-party claim. You are seeking past and future damages as well as punitive damages. The defense is denying all your allegations.
We’re here today to discuss how to enter various non-testimonial types of evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence. I will not complicate things by including evidence rules promulgated under South Carolina rules of evidence, but FYI they pretty much track the federal rules.
Before we get to admission problems, let’s briefly discuss the importance of developing a coherent legal and factual theory of your case. Given the plethora of information every case offers, you just can’t go off in your discovery in any direction and expect to get traction. You need a factual/legal theory of the case from which to view evidence and from which drive your questions, drive your analysis of your case.
But here’s the dilemma, at the beginning of the case, usually you don’t have enough facts to fashion a decent case theory. It’s a matter of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps. Fortunately, there’s a solution to this dilemma. If you are a PI lawyer, your client should provide you with 50 to 80% of the facts of your case at the intake. That’s enough for you to form a preliminary thesis. Of course the problem with this approach is: how reliable is your client? No matter how truthful your client seems, take nothing on faith. Verify everything your client says at the beginning of your case. Verify through questions and corroboration all other evidence in the case. It will save you a lot of headaches later on.
The elements we learn in law school and for the bar concerning causes of action are somewhat misleading. They are misleading in the sense that they are incomplete and only touch on making a prima fascia case. This is why you need a solid legal theory which takes into account all the parameters of the law before building your case. Take for example premises liability. Like any tort and negligence case you must prove duty, liability, proximate causation, and damages. However this is not the end of the story. As you know you must first determine the legal status of your client. Is she a business invitee or a licensee? You must determine if there was a notice, either actual or constructive.
You must determine if the danger was created by the defendant or was it, say, weather related? This affects many other elements of a premises liability case. You must determine if the tort was merely negligence or did it rise to the level of recklessness? What about damages? Are you seeking past and future? Are you seeking punitive damages? All of these are “elements“which are not specifically addressed by black letter law in the same space. As you can see, many more elements coming to play, revealing themselves as you proceed. This requires you to really dig into the legal requirements of your case. Consult treatises and other educational materials, especially those written by lawyers who practice in your state.
Once you have developed a preliminary theory and developed your evidentiary goals, you are ready to proceed. At every stage of your preparation remain skeptical. Always try to falsify your case by looking at it from the point of view of your opponent. The greatest attribute of a good litigator is to anticipate and prepare for trouble before it exists.The greatest sin a litigator can commit is to be gullible. Your attitude toward any piece of evidence should be good natured skepticism. Be skeptical of your opponent’s evidence. Most importantly be skeptical of your evidence. Try to get down to the studs, as they say, in the structure you are creating. Identify assumptions and personal bias and interrupt them.
Before you tackle any evidence problem, you have to ask yourself why do I need this piece of evidence, how does it help my case, what are the virtues besides meeting an element of my cause of action? Does it fit into my overall legal theory and or factual theory? What objections are likely to be raised by opposing counsel, and, most importantly, what are its downsides. Every piece of evidence has its strengths and weaknesses that vary according to what it is, what it proves, and how it fits in with other evidence in your case an in your opponent’s case. Can the evidence be viewed from a perspective that is antithetical to your case? How likely will the jury interpret it that way? Understand that juries are not monolithic. There can be as many interpretations of evidence as number of jurors. And remember, jurors view evidence from their own experience. Their thinking is pattern driven. They usually don’t conduct formal syllogistic analyses.
Also, don’t be satisfied with the prima fascia showing. Remember, you’re appealing to a jury of lay persons, and you have to be sensitive as to what they are likely to consider. In the OJ Simpson case, for instance, jurors considered not only the evidence presented in court, but the out of court evidence of a police department with an abysmal record in race relations.
So, you know the evidence you are going to use to prove your elements. Now you have to get them admitted. Tip: don’t wait until trial to try to introduce your evidence. See if opposing counsel will stipulate to admission. If not, consider making a motion in limine. Judges generally don’t like to admit evidence before trial because, again, evidence assumes its full color within the context of the entire case, within the context of other evidence. Judges generally like to wait until a more appropriate time during trial to decide on admissibility issues.
As with other types of evidence, documentary evidence must meet the following requirements: it must be relevant, it must not violate a privilege, it must not be inadmissible hearsay, it must be authentic, it must not violate the best evidence rule, and its probative value must exceed any prejudicial effect it may have. Again, don’t wait until the last minute to meet these requirements. Trial and hearing schedules are not as flexible as you may think. Always behave as if you’re running late. Get things done early because believe me there are always glitches which will put you behind the eight ball.
Admissibility needs witnesses. Witnesses can be cross-examined while documents cannot, yet we are relying on what the documents have to say on many occasions and generally the witnesses who shepherd them in have not themselves produced, in the sense of having written, the document. Think about the fairness of that for a moment. Because the document needs a “shepherd,” make certain the witness is available, is able to testify as you wish, and most importantly, is subpoenaed for trial. If you fail to subpoena her and she fails to show for trial, you may not get a continuance.
Let’s begin then with the most common type of record — the business record. Proper custody of the record is the key to authentication. Authentication — the thing is what the moving party contends it is. Thee witness must know the business filing system, has retrieved the record from the right file and recognizes the record as the one retrieved. Make certain the custodian specifies precisely how she recognizes the record as the one she retrieved, after which you ask the court to enter the document into evidence. The sequence is as follows:
Have the court reporter mark the record before showing it the custodian and say something like —“I am handing you what has been marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 for identification.” At the end of the presentation and testimony say: “Your Honor, I’d like to offer what has been marked as Plaintiff’s exhibit 1 for identification into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit One.” At that point ask the court to enter it into evidence. The court will ask opposing counsel if she has any objections to its admission, and if she doesn’t, then the record is introduced.
Photographs. It’s best to get the photographer to testify to photos’ authenticity. If one of your investigators took the picture, make sure she signs and dates the hard copy of the photo and can account for where the photo has been stored pending trial. I have never had a chain of custody objection, but it is a possibility. It’s easy to tamper with photos, especially these days with sophisticated programs. But anyone familiar with the scene or the object will do.
The elements of the foundation are: the witness is familiar with the object or scene that the photo depicts, the witness explains why and how she is familiar with the scene or object, the witness recognizes the object or scene in the photograph, and the photo fairly represents the object or scene. If you plan to use the photo as demonstrative evidence, make sure you blow it up. Photos are much more compelling to the jury when they are enlarged. If you plan to use several photos during final argument, set them up all at once so the jury has the maximum amount of time possible to view and digest their significance. It also provide a neat physical structure to your argument.
Which brings us to the admissibility requirements of demonstrative evidence. This is similar to the verification of photos. The diagram depicts a scene or object, the witness is familiar with it, the witness explains how she knows the object or area, and in the witnesses opinion the diagram accurately reflects the scene or object. Show the diagram to opposing counsel before you admit it. If there is something objectionable in the piece of demonstrative evidence, make sure your diagram or whatever can accommodate the change without having to throw the entire exhibit out.
Video recordings. Again, reproductive fidelity is the key. The foundation includes: the videographer is qualified, the videographer videotaped a thing or person at a particular time and place, the equipment was in good working order, proper procedures were used, the recording is a fair reproduction of the subject, the recording has been in the possession of the videographer since it was made or you can establish a chain of custody. For chain of custody issues, start planning early as witnesses may be unavailable, especially if the evidence is old.
Letters and private writing. This type of evidence generally involves wills and contracts, but they can be anything. This is why you have multiple witnesses to this documents during their execution. The foundational requirements for these documents are: the witness recognizes the document; the witness actually observed the document’s execution, when the document was executed, who else was present, what happened (witness testifies to its execution). Make sure you have the original as the terms of the writing are usually in dispute. I’ll get to the best evidence rule a little later.
Medical evidence, X-rays, MRI’s etc. Juries eat these things up. They believe that tests are the gold standard in evidence. And they are to some extent, but they are often misread, or they are inconclusive. So, like other types of evidence, medical evidence in the form of test results are vulnerable to attack. Also, take note that you are not entering the actual MRI or X-ray, but the test result which is a written document. Call the doctor who recorded the result. The actual picture does us no good, but I’m sure there’s always a jury member who fancies himself a radiologist who wonders why the actual picture has not been admitted.
The foundation for medical test results include: The witness is qualified to testify as to the validity of the process, the underlying theory is valid, that is, the theory is both generally accepted as valid by other experts in the field, the theory has been empirically verified, the instrument used was reliable, the machine itself is generally accepted as reliable and has undergone proper inspections and validations, the witness is qualified to interpret the results, the instrument was in good working order at the time of the test, the witness is qualified to conduct an interpret the results, the witness used the instrument to conduct the test, the witness used proper procedures, and finally the witness testifies to the results of the test.
Now, concerning the best evidence rule, note up front that it only applies to writings and only if the terms at issue. It is only applicable if the writing is offered to prove it contents. If you using it to cross – examine, the issue is credibility and therefore you don’t have to worry about establishing the writing as the best evidence. The foundation for the best evidence rule is: the witness recognizes the writing, the witness testifies as to how she is familiar with the writing, and the witness testifies it is the original.
Expert testimony. Many trials boil down to a battle of the experts. If you’re a PI lawyer, you will most certainly be using at least one doctor if not several others with an additional expert to testify to the appropriate standard of care. Try to choose an expert who is pre-eminent in her field and who has testified for both the defense and plaintiff. You want your experts to seem as objective as possible. Also I generally try to use board certified doctors.
Choose an expert who has had trial experience. Even top notch experts have trouble standing up to a good cross examiner. Show them how to stand their ground by questioning opposing counsels assumption in his cross and drill them with likely cross examination questions so they know what to expect and can prepare for it. Also, make sure she testifies to firsthand knowledge if possible. If you are trying a premises liability case, and the issues are standard of care and its breach, the expert should actually visit the site. If you are putting on the medical case, the doctor should have actually examined the patient, rather than simply relying on the patient’s chart as their source of information.
If you can, stipulate to the expert’s qualification unless you want the jury to hear what a hot shot your guy is. The foundation for an expert’s opinion is: The witness has acquired degrees from an educational institution in the field (you don’t want an eye doctor for an ortho case, use a chiropractor for a chiropractor case, etc.), the witness has specified training, she is licensed to practice and has done so for a significant amount of time, the expert has taught in the field, she has published in the field, she belongs to a professional organization or organizations, and she has previously testified as an expert on the subject.
As far as the actual MRI, CT Scan or X-Ray, I do not enter it into evidence as the jurors are not radiologists, even if you did enter it, you can bet some jurors would try to interpret the results.
Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash
by Thomas Gagné | Nov 16, 2019 | Essays
An Essay
By Thomas Gagne
Immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous. – Bertrand Russell
Know Thyself. – Delphic Maxim
The idea of work caught my imagination the other day. Not work in the sense of preparing for a deposition, or some such, but the idea of work. And in the course of my mental meanderings, I recalled the above quote by Bertrand Russell. It struck me as odd that he, of all people, penned this little plum, given that during his ninety-eight years on this planet he was, what we would call today, a workaholic.
The man was a writing machine. His literary legacy included eighty books, two thousand articles, and over four thousand letters. His great work, The Principia Mathematica, sought to derive all mathematics, no less, from logical precepts. He failed, defeated by mathematical paradoxes, but not without cofounding Analytic Philosophy, which would fill the rice bowls of philosophy professors for the next half-century.
Logician, Cambridge don and mentor to the young Wittgenstein, Russell stuck his finger into a dizzying variety of intellectual pies – from ethics to epistemology, religion to politics. He was a liberal darling and a royal pain to conservatives. He was once dubbed “The Most Hated Man In England” after lambasting Britain’s role in the war the First World War a practice he stubbornly clung to until it landed him in jail for a brief period.
Russell was a scion of Welsh aristocracy, so we can understand, at least, a class affinity for leisure. But is he seriously suggesting that worklessness (“idleness,” I think, misses the mark) is the preferred state of being, even given his hypergraphia? I don’t think so, even if there is an authority to the contrary.
Consider Genesis. Adam and Eve didn’t work. So what did they do? I imagine their playing, naming things (Adam seemed to have a talent for taxonomy), sleeping, eating, and fooling around – generally having a grand old time. The world’s first leisure class on an indefinite vacation. But it wouldn’t have been much of a story if things remained paradisiacal, so, like the kids they were, they did the one thing they were told not to do eat the forbidden fruit. Their punishment for their juvenile curiosity (and becoming, in effect, self-aware, in the first great act of self-discovery) seems, at this distance, severe. In addition to deportation, thanks to them humanity now had to survive by the “sweat of their brows” i.e., work in perpetuity.*
This story’s message regarding work is clear – work is punishment. From the beginning, as it were, the western man found himself contra work. Work implied malfeasance, the surest sign of original sin.
This left us the major literary and philosophical theme that if only we could return to our original state we could be happy again.
Later, however, the sting of having to work is mollified. In His Sermon on the Mount, Christ offered: “Consider the lilies of the field; how they grow, they neither toil nor do they spin.” Mathew 6:25. In other words, don’t worry, God will take care of you. It even becomes something a virtue: “A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.” Prov. 13:4.
This tension involving the moral value of work is especially apparent in the legal profession due to the predominate belief, especially in America, that hard work is essential in securing a respected place in society. So we cater to work, fetishize it, obsessively react to its whims, obsequiously heed the master’s voice the clarion tinkle of a smartphone, or the jolly jingle of a tablet.
We often despise work, enlisting certain days to reflect our resentment of it. We have “Hump day” or “Thank God it’s Friday.” If we should have a day off, perfect strangers will ask “Not working today?”, as if we were committing some sly misdemeanor with our absence demanding an explanation.
Psychoanalysts tell us that the two most important things in life are love and work, but then doctors tell us work is killing us. We work too hard. We sleep too little. In Thomas Mann’s Buddenbrooks (1901), Thomas Buddenbrooks, a respectable businessman chastises his no-account brother: “Work! Occupy yourself with something useful instead of indulging in your hypochondria.” Pithy sayings gird our working loins: “Greatness is 10 percent inspiration, 90 percent perspiration,” implying that if we only worked more we too could be an Edison when the bitter truth is there are those who exceed us and will continue to exceed us all out of proportion to their effort.
In college, my friends and I would sometimes debate who worked the hardest and was therefore due the greatest respect – the engineers, the architects or the premeds? The controversy was based on the unstated equation that hard work was directly proportional to merit. I was a literature major, so I wasn’t even in the running, but I always pulled for the architects, those hidden heroes of creativity, sporting BandAids on their fingers, courtesy of the ExactOKnife. Bleeding for your work. Now that’s commitment.
Even our attitude toward downtime reveals our attitude toward work – our need to “get away from it all.” We attend corporate “retreats” as if we’ve been in battle. At the same time, we acclaim work by bestowing upon employees such titles as “Employee of the Month.” Then we turn around and parody work in movies like Office Space, in which bosses are heartless egomaniacs and employees are paranoid zombies substituting clichés for conversation (“Looks like a case of the Mondays”), in which the protagonist’s dream is to do “absolutely nothing.”
We tend to ignore the nature of work, focusing on its attributes or consequences. We are fascinated by how other people structure their working time. Is it best to work harder in the morning and then gradually taper off as the day wears on? If so, why are some people so productive in the evening? Is taking a nap in the middle of the day decadent, or sensible? Should we work in accordance with our “circadian rhythm?” Are we working hard for our families or at their expense?
To refer to a person as “hardworking” implies she is worthy of respect, ambitious, a real hard charger and go-getter. Yet the supreme irony is that many people work to become members of the leisure class, where work is optional. They don’t view the leisured elite’s relative idleness as a moral defect. To the contrary, they pay it the ultimate tribute by imitating its style.
Is it any wonder we live in what some have dubbed “The Age of Anxiety?” Why do we revere work yet simultaneously deplore it? Put simply, why are so many people unhappy in their work?
Obviously, people work because they need money to survive. Then to shine. Not a world-shattering insight by any means. But if we work just to survive, or we choose a vocation based merely on its remunerative potential, and we’re just surviving, or surviving well, is that enough?
For many people, working just for money can lead to dreadful unhappiness. It can foster family discord, anxiety, and other emotional problems; it invites drug and alcohol abuse, even suicide. People end up working at jobs they detest, buy things to impress or to fill an inner emptiness, then buy more things they don’t need with money they don’t have until they have to actually buy extra space to store the things they never use. Caught in a cycle of hyperconsumerism, work becomes their master. Their job consumes their being.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not anticonsumerism. I like my sports car. I carefully watch my investments. I don’t believe the pursuit of money is bad, or wrongheaded. I’m just after a bigger game. I believe man is more than Homo Oeconomica. To that end, let’s conduct an extreme case analysis and consider what most would agree to be Michelangelo’s greatest work of art – The Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (The Ceiling).
The Ceiling, with its tortured torsos of the damned whirling in perfect geometric counterpoint to the exquisite bliss of the ascendants in some kind of celestial ballet, marks a quantum leap in Michelangelo’s artistic development.
Although large frescoes depicting religious themes certainly weren’t novel during the High Renaissance, it was the scale, intensity, and compositional complexity of The Ceiling which distinguished Michelangelo’s great work. His Ceiling transcended the beautiful to become an earthly embodiment of pure spirit. Michelangelo began the project with sixty-five assistants but soon fired them all. How did one man accomplish this artistic miracle?
To understand the amount of effort, it was the custom among fresco painters of the period, Michelangelo first sketched his subjects on large sheets of paper that he would later transfer to the prepared surface. He then applied the details. He would begin with an idea of the subject and its function within the overall composition, a clear enough idea but still largely inchoate, unexpressed. He then sketched and resketched the idea until the form expressed his idea. It wasn’t an intellectual exercise as much as an emotional one. He was after an aesthetic emotion rather than a specific form.
As he neared The Ceiling’s completion, he sketched and painted faster and with more confidence until he no longer needed preliminary sketches. In time, he would paint directly onto the virginal surface, each subject a masterpiece, unmediated, unpremeditated, flowing directly from his brain to his brush to the plaster.
Western science calls the process “cognitive self-actualization.” Colloquially we call it: “getting in the flow.” Eastern thought terms
it “doing not doing.” A perfect example of this phenomenon is the concert pianist. She does not consciously place each finger on preselected keys. The music simply flows from her, flows through her, into the instrument.
Cognitive self-actualization is not a reiteration of the facile saw – “practice makes perfect.” Achieving perfection is not the point. Being the best is not the point. The point is the search, the quest for the unalloyed “you,” that deep authentic center within us patiently awaiting liberation. Shift perspective from the work-product to what the work does to and for the worker. In the case of Michelangelo, work unleashed his inner form, his spirit. Just as he would chisel away layers of marble until his sculptures “revealed” themselves, work eliminated inauthenticity within the artist to reveal the pure idea of Michelangelo, which had always, already existed. Michelangelo’s greatest work of art was not the Ceiling. It was Michelangelo himself.
Of course, there was only one Michelangelo. But it’s been my experience that most people possess at least one talent or ability, if not several, to one degree or another.
I won’t go so far as to claim that everyone possesses a talent, life certainly isn’t that kind, but what is truly sad is that many people won’t let themselves discover or cultivate their talent(s), which, contrary to current wisdom, I believe is innate.
Let me illustrate. I recall sitting in my parents’ dining room, age fourteen, studying Gray’s Anatomy (I can hear the snickers), specifically the structure of the spine (which happens to be the body part I deal with the most as a PI attorney). My interest in anatomy combined with a certain academic success led me to believe I was headed for a career in medicine. Unfortunately, I was all thumbs in the lab – catching my hair on fire by standing too close to a Bunsen burner, spilling concentrated hydrochloric acid on my jeans, among other faux pas (In my defense, I wasn’t the first person to spill acid on his jeans).
Add to that my visceral aversion to dissection (I don’t mind the sight of animal meat, as long as I’m not the butcher), and I came face to face with the first great truth about my future – no matter how well I performed on the theoretical side of science, in its actual practice, I was a disaster. My dream of medical school evaporated, and I was devastated. It was my first great heartbreak. My college advisor suggested I try pursuing something less “hands-on,” something literary perhaps. So, via an undergraduate tour of western philosophy and literature, I settled on the law for my postgraduate studies. To my astonishment, I did well in law school, despite my initially tepid enthusiasm for the subject. It suited my inclination to analyze, argue and write.
Was I on a path to becoming an attorney even earlier, when, at the age of six, I persuaded my father, a merchant mariner at the time, into signing a promissory note I called it a “contract” for $120 when he returned from his next voyage? Was I on that path at seven, when I would write long letters to my father while he was at sea, analyzing such urgent topics as the differences between the Tasmanian Devil in the Bugs Bunny cartoon and the real thing)?
The seeds of my becoming a lawyer seem to have sprouted at a young age, well before I even knew what one was. Environment nor genetics can account for my actions. No one in my family was a lawyer; frankly, none had been to college. Nor does enculturation explain it. I watched cartoons and I Dream of Jeannie, not Owen Marshall, Counselor at Law. Was my career in the cards all along, or am I merely engaging in confirmation bias, longing for meaning in a potentially meaningless world?
Perhaps. But I don’t think so. I believe that my career is a natural extension of my personality, an expression, if you will, of my innate being, having existed all along, which is, even at this moment, furtively, yet inexorably, progressing. So I say: pierce the quotidian clutter and noise of life to see it, to feel it, for yourself that which is within, that’s alive, that’s yours, and that, at the same time, is not yours. And that, patient reader, requires introspection and meditation.
Embrace experience. Commit to the trash your fears and status quo bias. Listen to what the world, nature, and providence is plainly telling you. It’s not a secret. You don’t need a special handshake to get in. It’s not coded so there’s no need to decipher it. Chances are your soul’s vocation (or avocation) is already beckoning.
Finding one’s calling, and thriving in it, is not easy. The search is not without risk or pain. There are no guarantees. Realize too that work is not synonymous with vocation. Work has a greater significance. Work can be one of the highest expressions of one’s inner divinity, in Chinese one’s Ch’i, in Buddhism one’s Prana. Heidegger called it Being. It involves surrendering to the talents and gifts providence and nature have thoughtfully provided. Work is a chance to live a life of true meaning and fulfillment. It enables us to experience moments of epiphany, to celebrate one’s existence, to celebrate life. If this line of thought borders on the mystical, so be it. I think it’s a mistake to indiscriminately adopt the west’s talismanic belief that logic and reason govern all the affairs of this world.
So, with all due respect, I must disagree with Professor Russell on the subject of work. Work is not intrinsically harmful, a chore to have done with, a punishment to endure, an “ethic” that burnishes one’s social status, a means to acquire things, a way to win the esteem of others, a duty to fulfill, a commodity to sell, a means to build a fort to protect us from the world or a temple to our vanity. It is not intrinsically alienating, and it certainly shouldn’t make us neurotic.
Work is a virtue, just not in the way we commonly define the word. It is intimately involved in identity formation** Work should inspire, not imprison, exhilarate, not enervate, if done within the bounds of good sense and balance. How we work, and what we do is the rub.
If we do it right, and with a bit of courage, then it becomes our creative partner in an ever-evolving process of self-discovery, renewal and if we’re lucky transcendence.
*Note that the First Great Crime was malum prohibitum, while the Second Great Crime Cain’s passion killing was malum in se. The implication is clear. Respect for the law precedes and therefore supersedes, respect for the natural or commonsense moral law. This interpretation neatly fits Hebraic tradition and its focus on strict adherence to the lawman’s relationship to God is fundamentally legal, as is, a fortiori, man’s relation to man. There’s nothing per se wrong with eating shellfish – just don’t do it. The fact that an oyster is generally benign and quite nutritious is irrelevant. Respect for the law is the point. The subtext of Genesis establishes the central role law plays in exerting social control and conformity in groups. Ensuring equity and resolving conflicts are important but ultimately secondary concerns.
** For an introductory understanding of the critical role identity formation plays in our psychological development see Erik Erikson’s (1968) Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York, NY: W.Norton Company
Thomas Gagne is owner/president
of the Attorney Offices of Thomas Gagne, P.A. Prior to opening his firm, he was an Army JAG Prosecutor and Special Assistant United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina.
Photo by David Siglin
