Court Opinion

ID: 9597848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:03:20.236034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:12.728949
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I would reverse the decision of the trial court denying Koubourlis the right to a jury trial. The order of the trial court striking Koubourlis’ right to a jury trial as a sanction was based on the trial court’s finding that the information Koubourlis had released to the press about Akers’ criminal record “materially interfered with the lawful administration of the judicial process in this case and ... has materially prejudiced Plaintiffs’ right to a fair and speedy trial if a jury trial were to be held.” The trial court had no evidence before it as to what effect, if any, the information Koubourlis released would have on the selection of a jury to try the case. No order in limine had been granted by the trial court restricting Koubourlis’ release of Ak-ers’ criminal record. The exercise of discretion by a trial court to deprive a litigant to the right to a jury trial must be based on more wian an unsupported conclusion, masquerading as a finding.
The single newspaper article at issue appeared six months before trial. The article was based on the contents of a brief by counsel for Koubourlis in opposition to Ak-ers’ motion in limine. The brief had attached to it an affidavit by counsel for Koubourlis detailing the efforts that he had made to investigate Akers’ criminal record. Koubourlis gave a copy of this brief to a newspaper reporter and told the reporter that he could get a full picture of the dispute over the mall by examining the court’s file.
The information that Koubourlis released had been uncovered by his attorney at Koubourlis’ expense by searching public records in California, Alaska, and Nevada. By the time Akers finally responded to discovery requests for the information about his criminal record, Koubourlis had already ascertained the facts independently. Koubourlis did not release information that had been obtained through discovery.
The trial court did not consider any other sanction short of depriving Koubourlis of his right to a jury trial. Based on the facts in this record, I would hold that this was an abuse of discretion and would reverse the trial court’s judgment and grant Koubour-lis a jury trial.