Opinion ID: 1156578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: disclosure to jury: current case law

Text: The current approach is to validate Mary Carter and similar agreements, so long as they are not void as against public policy, [7] but to require that they be fully disclosed to the court and, under certain circumstances, to the jury. Ratterree v. Bartlett, 238 Kan. 11, 27, 707 P.2d 1063, 1074 (1985); see R. Eubanks & A. Cocchiarella, In Defense of Mary Carter, 26 For The Defense 14, 22-23 (1984). The Florida Supreme Court adopted a similar position in Ward, 284 So.2d 385, when it overruled Booth v. Mary Carter. The court stated: The search for the truth, in order to give justice to the litigants, is the primary duty of the courts. Secret agreements between plaintiffs and one or more of several multiple defendants can tend to mislead judges and juries, and border on collusion. To prevent such deception, we are compelled to hold that such agreements must be produced for examination before trial, when sought to be discovered under appropriate rules of procedure. Id. at 387. In Mustang Equipment, Inc. v. Welch, 115 Ariz. 206, 210-11, 564 P.2d 895, 900 (1977) (en banc), the Arizona Supreme Court adopted a rule which required disclosure of Gallagher agreements to counsel and the court. [8] The court stated that it is a better policy to require pretrial disclosure of such agreements to the court and to all concerned parties. [W]e cannot condone secret agreements between a plaintiff and defendant which, by their very secretiveness, may tend to encourage wrongdoing and which, at the least, may tend to lessen the public's confidence in our adversary system. Id. at 211, 564 P.2d at 900. In Johnson v. Moberg, 334 N.W.2d 411, 415 (Minn. 1983), the Minnesota court held that a Mary Carter agreement could affect the motivation of the parties and the credibility of the witnesses and therefore the settlement must be brought into the open so trial can proceed in a fair manner. Id. In California, the legislature has gone so far as to codify that state's rule regarding admission of sliding scale recovery agreements. The California statute requires that the court be informed of the agreement and that existence of the agreement, as well as its terms and provisions, be disclosed to the jury. See R. Eubanks & A. Cocchiarella, In Defense of Mary Carter, 26 For The Defense 14, 23 (1984).