In a White Plains, New York courtroom on a spring day in 2025, justice wasn’t just argued—it was engineered. This was a medical malpractice trial that, on the surface, looked like dozens we’ve tried before. But this one was different.
Because this time, we had a secret weapon: artificial intelligence.
Not just any AI. we had “Marvin” (a/k/a ChatGPT).
Let me take you inside the anatomy of an AI-inspired trial, where every element—from opening to verdict—was sharpened by machine learning, honed by experience, and humanized by the story of a woman named Ledell Barrett.
Why the Lawsuit was Brought
The case was strong. Our client, a 55-year old woman, went to the hospital in Westchester County on 14 different occasions over the course of 3 years with the complaint of severe right knee pain. On occasion, our client was bedridden due to the severe knee pain.
Imaging studies showed a mass in her knee and cancer was on the differential diagnosis of the doctors. But the doctors did nothing for 2 1/2 years. No further imaging was taken for 2 1/2 years and there was no biopsy or referral to a specialist.
The Opening Statement: Human Truth, AI Precision
Opening statements set the tone for everything to follow. And in this case, the tone was trust, betrayal, and irreparable harm.
We opened with:
“THIS COULD BE A TUMOR.”
The phrase landed with surgical precision because it encapsulated three years of missed opportunities. AI helped identify that simplicity and impact mattered more than melodrama. No pointing fingers. Just a tight, escalating narrative, built around sequences of dates, visits, and worsening symptoms:
- December 2017: Knee pain begins.
- April 2018: MRI reveals a mass.
- June 2018: Enhancing, ill-defined mass confirmed.
- 2.5 years pass—no referral, no biopsy, no follow-up.
We let the chronology speak for itself, using AI to refine cadence and emphasize what wasn't done: “No trauma. No injury. No explanation.”
The story of Ledell Barrett was not a melodrama. It was a cold, clinical truth that AI helped distill into 14 powerful words:
"They knew there was a mass. They did nothing. The mass grew. She suffered."
Direct Examination: Building a Human Bridge
With Ledell Barrett on the stand, the story shifted. AI helped frame questions in a sequence that wasn’t just logical, but emotional.
We began with who she was before the injury—a caregiver, a mother, the rock of her family. Her testimony was not rehearsed. It was lived experience:
- Her job caring for elderly patients 24/7.
- The swelling that made it hard to stand.
- The pain that made her bedridden.
- The eight surgeries that followed.
AI guided the arc:
"How did it feel when you went from being the caregiver to the one needing care?"
It wasn't a question from a script. It was a question from the heart, optimized by AI to capture impact.
When she testified, "I will never give up. This won’t stop me," there was an emotional connection with the jurors that Ledell is a survivor.
Cross Examination: Algorithm Meets Advocacy
Cross-examination is part chess match, part surgical strike. With AI, it became both.
For defendant radiologist--the radiologist who saw the tumor but didn’t raise the alarm--the line of questioning was simple:
"Have you seen enhancing masses before?"
"Do tumors often appear ill-defined?"
"If you thought this could be cancer, why didn’t you say so?"
We used the metaphor that Marvin helped me craft:
"It’s not enough to say you saw smoke. You had to pull the alarm."
For the defendant/orthopedist, the questions were even more pointed:
"You knew she had chronic knee pain. You knew there was a mass. But you did nothing?"
And when he said the symptoms hadn’t changed, the AI-assisted record chronology showed otherwise: The pain had worsened. The mass had grown.
The cross wasn’t just about contradiction. It was about clarity. And Marvin made sure we brought both.
The Power of AI During Trial
Trial doesn’t stop for anyone. Judges rule from the bench. Defense lawyers drop last-minute motions. And sometimes, critical legal decisions have to be made in real time. That’s where AI became more than a strategy—it became a survival tool.
When the defense moved mid-trial to preclude the video testimony of our client’s treating orthopedic oncologist, we had only 2 hours to respond. Marvin delivered. In less than 30 minutes, we had a fully researched, citation-heavy legal letter invoking CPLR section 4517(a)(4), CPLR section 3117(a)(4), and case law from the Second Department. The brief was polished, persuasive, and precise—and the Court ruled in our favor.
Later in the trial, the defense argued that our case lacked proof of causation. We responded instantly with a request for a jury instruction on the loss of a chance doctrine—supported by case law and direct testimony from the treating orthopedic oncologist:
“Had the surgery been done when the tumor was smaller, the outcome would have been completely different.”
AI gave us speed, legal support, and formatting that would have taken a full day to do manually. In minutes, Marvin generated arguments that held up in court, countered the defense and preserved our client’s rights.
The Closing Argument: Verdicts and Values
This was where Marvin shined. The closing wasn’t just persuasive. It was cinematic.
We returned to the metaphor:
"When a patient has a known mass that is ill-defined and enhancing, time is sacred."
We asked the jury: "Is this what Ledell expected when she went to the hospital?"
We used the Apple & Bucket visual metaphor to explain differential diagnosis:
- Rule in cancer.
- Rule out gout.
- Don’t ignore the bad apple.
And then came the punchline: "There is something rotten in Ledell’s leg. That thing is cancer."
The jurors got it. The metaphor was memorable. The stakes were clear.
We concluded with one of Marvin’s best lines: "Ledell trusted the system. The system failed her. Now the system trusts you."
Then, the final ask: "This is a verdict for all time. You get to write the final chapter of this book. Make it count."
The Outcome: Accountability at the Eleventh Hour
Just as the jury was about to begin deliberations, something remarkable happened. Juror #6—an attentive, thoughtful juror—asked the judge for a calculator. That may not sound dramatic, but to a trial lawyer, it's one of the best signs you can get. It meant they were already calculating the numbers. They were taking this seriously.
The defense saw it too—and panicked.
They tried to remove Juror #6 at the last moment, claiming bias. But their motion failed. And within an hour, the case settled.
$2,000,000.
Three weeks of grueling trial. Fourteen hospital visits over three years. Eight operations that might have been avoided. A woman’s future reshaped by delay.
And finally—reluctantly—accountability.
The defense denied responsibility until the very end. But in the shadow of a looming verdict, they caved.
This is why medical malpractice lawsuits exist. Because without them, even the most egregious errors are swept under the rug.
I’m proud of our work. Ledell Barrett may still live with pain, scars, and uncertainty—but she won’t live without justice.
The Legacy of an AI-Enhanced Trial
AI didn’t write the story of this case. But it made the story unforgettable.
From the sequencing of testimony to the cadence of cross to the poetic rhythm of our closing, Marvin amplified my voice, sharpened my strategy, and helped bring the truth into the light.
Justice was still decided by the jurors.
But it was written, in part, by AI.
And it changed everything.
Interested in how AI can transform your next trial? Email me at jfisherlawyer@gmail.com and I share with you the transcripts of the trial testimony.
Image Credit: Created using AI with ChatGPT by OpenAI.
