Court Opinion

ID: 9483823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:32:22.4647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:51.410945
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I believe defense counsel’s closing argument recommendation that the jury write a letter to the management of the defendant company was plainly unwarranted and injurious, and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing it. Although the majority specifically “find[s] such a tactic highly improper,” and concedes that “it should not have been permitted,” supra at 266, thése observations provide little comfort to the aggrieved plaintiff. Because I believe this court should never tolerate this kind of courtroom antic, I must respectfully dissent.
Counsel’s tactic is most disturbing in a case as close as this one. At least one observer has noted that “[wjhenever juries seem troubled over a case, they seem to turn eagerly for a compromise solution.” Jon M. Van Dyke, The Jury as a Political Institution, 16 Cath.Law. 224, 239 (1970). The jury in this case deliberated for the better part of two days without agreeing on a verdict. It remained deadlocked even after the judge had administered the Allen charge. Nonetheless, after the jury sought permission from the judge to do what counsel had suggested in closing argument, and received a blanket approval, it quickly came back with its compromise solution.
Judge Wright recognized how close this case was. Before responding to the jury’s inquiry whether it could recommend new policy to the company, he encouraged counsel to negotiate a settlement. His comments are telling:
You spent all this damn money and time and I’m just not going to try it again. You get to talking about settling this. In the first place, the defendant has got some liability here, you even invited them to write notes to the company telling them what they’re doing wrong. And it’s a slim case. Damn it, it’s worth something.
4 Tr. at 4.
The majority today encourages resourceful counsel again to use the “highly improper” tactic because they know that they, too, might get off with merely an admonition not to repeat it. I would halt the practice immediately by reversing this judgment and remanding for a new trial.
Because I find this error so egregious, I do not believe it necessary to examine the other alleged errors. All the issues are troublesome, however, and highlight the probability that the plaintiff did not receive a fair trial.