Court Opinion

ID: 2964925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:03.930452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.745649
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

        No. 96-2208

                                   MANUEL TAVARES,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                               MICHIGAN FISHING, INC.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Thomas E. Clinton, with whom Clinton & Muzyka, P.C. was on brief
             _________________            ______________________
        for appellant.
             Michael B. Latti, with whom Carolyn M. Latti and Latti Associates
             ________________            ________________     ________________
        LLP were on brief for appellee.
        ___

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                   October 24, 1997
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.     Michigan  Fishing,  Inc.  ("Michigan")
                    Per  Curiam
                    ___________

          appeals the district  court's denial of its motion  for new trial

          after the jury found  it liable under the Jones Act,  46 U.S.C.  

          688  (Supp. 1997),  for bodily  injuries  sustained by  plaintiff

          Manuel Tavares while a seaman  aboard the F/V CONCORDIA, owned by

          Michigan.   In particular,  Michigan contends that  the following

          jury argument by plaintiff's counsel was unfairly prejudicial:

                         [Captain   Jacobsen]   says,   I   don't
                    remember.   I don't  remember whether  I gave
                    someone a  list after  this accident,  to fix
                    it.   I don't  remember.   I don't  remember.
                    That's  all he keeps  on saying, but  we know
                                                     ___  __ ____
                    that  four days  after there was  this repair
                    ____  ____ ____  _____ _____ ___  ____ ______
                    done  and there was an invoice  for it and it
                    ____  ___ _____ ___ __ _______  ___ __ ___ __
                    was  done   and  it  was  on  that  starboard
                    ___  __________  __  ___  __  ____  _________
                    hoister.  (emphasis added).
                    _______    ________ _____

          Michigan argues  that  the quoted  language invited  the jury  to

          treat  the invoice  as substantive  evidence  of liability,  even

          though the invoice was never admitted in evidence.

                    There  was  no abuse  of  discretion.    See Correa  v.
                                                             ___ ______

          Hospital San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 1194 (1st Cir. 1995), cert.
          ______________________                                      _____

          denied, 116 S. Ct.  1423 (1996).  The same invoice  had been used
          ______

          earlier to  impeach the ship's  captain, after he  denied knowing

          whether any repairs were made  to the hoister after the accident.

          Furthermore, the trial judge promptly cautioned the jury that the

          invoice was not to be  considered substantive evidence, but  only

          for impeachment purposes.

                    Michigan nonetheless maintains that  the jury must have

          disregarded the district court instruction.  It points to a later

          jury  note:   "Why  was  invoice for  repairs  not submitted  for

                                          2

          evidence?  Exactly  what did it show."   Thereafter, however, the

          trial  judge firmly  disabused  the  jury  of  any  misconception

          portended by the note:

                         First, "Why was  invoice for repairs not
                    submitted for  evidence?"   Because it's  not
                    admissible under the laws of evidence and the
                    law governing this case.
                         So, in  answer to  the second  question,
                    I'll  have nothing to say about what it shows
                    or  not . . . or even  if it's an invoice for
                    repairs.  You  have heard those things  which
                    are admissible  and I  have charged you  with
                    respect to them. 

                    Coupled with  its earlier instruction  that the invoice

          could be considered only "to get a handle on the believability of

          the witnesses who  testified before [the jury], and  nothing else

          whatsoever[,]" the district court's later cautionary  instruction

          was sufficient to keep  the jury on the proper track.   See Conde
                                                                  ___ _____

          v.  Starlight I,  Inc., 103  F.3d 210, 213  (1st Cir.  1997) ("We
              __________________

          normally  presume that a  jury follows instructions  to disregard

          improper argumentation.").

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed
                    ________

                                          3