Opinion ID: 3038699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Trial Based on Trial Court’s Questioning

Text: of Mayor John Street In post-trial motions, defendants contended Judge Fullam should have ordered a new trial based on Judge Newcomer’s prejudicial questioning of M ayor John Street. 1 9 19 Defendants referenced three particular instances: THE COURT: In the course of your tenure on City Council and as Mayor, has there ever been any event that has been as traumatic in the City of Philadelphia as this event at Osage Avenue? THE WITNESS: This is way up there, your Honor. It is way up there. THE COURT: Can you explain why you don’t have a better understanding of all these questions that are being asked of you? THE WITNESS: That’s easy to explain. THE COURT: I wish you would. THE WITNESS: Because I am Mayor of the fifth largest city in the country . . . . [describing other duties as Mayor of Philadelphia]. THE COURT: Yet, you can’t remember— THE WITNESS: I just can’t remember the details. 42 THE COURT: Let me finish. That’s an impressive list [of duties of the Mayor]. THE WITNESS: That’s just short or part of the list. THE COURT: Among your responsibilities, aren’t you also responsible for the welfare and the well-being of all of the citizens of Philadelphia and wouldn’t that include the people who live at Osage Avenue. THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your honor. THE COURT: So, if that is your answer to my question, so be it. THE WITNESS: Can I explain? THE COURT: I think you have. Trial Tr. at 86–88 (Mar. 31, 2005). [THE WITNESS]: Because there are—this is a very complicated situation that has been going on . . . for a long, longtime. The incident that occurred that gave rise to all of this litigation, occurred in May of 1985. By the time that I got to be the Mayor, in January of 2000, it is 15 years later . . . . I am telling you that I do not agree that the city was responsible . . . . 43 THE COURT: Just a minute. That’s not what your counsel has informed the Court or this jury. Counsel has informed the Court and the jury unless I’m grossly in error, that the city has accepted responsibility for the damage caused on that occasion. [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, the plaintiff counsel is asking— THE COURT: Am I correct or incorrect? [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: I would like to explain that. THE COURT: Just tell me am I correct or incorrect, have you not so stated for the record? [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: I stated for the record, that the city had accepted responsibility. THE COURT: Very well, that’s what I thought I just said. [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: Y o u r H on or, I w o u ld lik e to explain. First of all, that— THE COURT: No, this is not a time to explain. I just wanted you to respond, in view 44 of the Mayor’s most recent testimony here. [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: Then I have an objection to the question as drawing on the—asking for a legal conclusion from the witness. THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed. Trial Tr. at 90–91 (Mar. 31, 2005). THE COURT: My next question is, do you have any way of knowing, have you ever conducted a study or do you have an opinion, as to what it would cost in the aggregate to fix all of these houses, put them in the shape that they were intended to be in? THE WITNESS: Today, now? THE COURT: Today. THE WITNESS: I don’t know. THE COURT: Did you ever do that, ever develop a study? THE WITNESS: There were people who were responsible for it, trying to figure out how much it would cost. THE COURT: I’m asking you. 45 Defendants contend these questions demonstrated animosity toward Mayor John Street and defendants’ counsel, and suggested to the jury an answer to the ultimate issue before them. Defendants maintain the trial judge misunderstood the difference between the acceptance of responsibility for the original MOVE incident and for the current repairs, contending THE WITNESS: Did I ever personally do it? No, your Honor. THE COURT: Someone working for you? THE WITNESS: I think someone working for the city, did that on numerous occasions. THE COURT: You should have some kind of response to my question, shouldn’t you? THE WITNESS: I can get a response, your Honor, I don’t have that with me. I don’t have it in front of me. Nobody told me to bring any documents. People told me to bring my body. THE COURT: You are here because you are the Mayor of the city. You already testified that it would not be feasible to perform repairs, that’s why I’m asking you the question. Trial Tr. 115–16 (Mar. 31, 2005). 46 the jury was either left with the mistaken impression that Mayor John Street did not accept responsibility for the 1985 MOVE bombing or that the court believed that the city was legally responsible for the 2000 repairs. Judge Fullam characterized these questions by the trial judge as “expressing surprise” that Mayor John Street could not recall key occurrences and suggesting the Mayor should have “been more solicitous of the welfare of his citizens.” Chainey, 2005 WL 3263042, at . But as Judge Fullam noted, the trial judge immediately issued a curative instruction to the jury after the third exchange. Id. Moreover, Judge Fullam noted the questions might have influenced only the punitive damages award against the Mayor, which he overturned. Id. Because the evidence on the breach of contract claims likely entitled