Court Opinion

ID: 9746481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:18:32.323719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:13.625079
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
OLSZEWSKI, J.:
¶ 1 I concur with the majority’s well-reasoned opinion in this matter. I write separately only to express my great concern over the improprieties of the underlying ex parte communications at issue here.
¶ 2 First, I agree that it is improper to apply the two-witness rule of criminal perjury cases to a civil case where it is alleged, as grounds for a new trial, that a witness lied under oath. Second, I agree that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial, as the finding that the underlying communications were misinterpreted by appellant and her counsel was supported by the trial court’s specific determinations.
¶ 3 Nevertheless, while we are constrained by the facts of this case, the applicable law in this matter, and the standard of review on appeal, I feel that the conversation between the trial judge and the defense expert witness (the trial judge’s own personal physician), as well as the conversation involving the trial judge, the plaintiff, and her counsel, were entirely inappropriate. As the trial court noted, these conversations “should not have taken place at all.” Opinion and Order, 6/29/04, at 9. Certainly a trial judge should not be prevented from exchanging pleasantries with persons outside of court; however, specific communications about in-court legal matters are not acceptable ex parte topics of conversation, and such communication should not be repeated or condoned.