>I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.
Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?
He was a bystander who stuck around and tried to do the right thing. The people charged decided to go to trial and now he’s on the hook to show up and answer stupid questions under oath.
The objective of the defense is likely to have him not show up.
I mean...if the correct outcome is rendered and the fact that he stuck around to help and went to court to testify about it is part of the reason why...why would you portray that as something negative?
Because he offered some info that made it into the report and years later some guy they had reviewing the fifteen dozen reports relating to that insurance fraud saw that info and said "let's get that guy on the stand, a jury will eat that shit up".