Court Opinion

ID: 9460678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:57:34.932108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:43.652083
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I dissent. The conduct of plaintiff’s counsel in his repeated and improper references to matters designed to prejudice the defendant, many of them in contravention of the trial judge’s directions, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
To understand the issues here it must be realized that because of the extraordinarily long delay in the case’s coming to trial (some ten years after the accident) several employees of the then New York Central Railroad who had been involved in the Collins accident had died before trial. Evidently plaintiff’s counsel made no effort to depose these employees prior to their deaths. These employees had, however, submitted handwritten statements shortly after the accident to the railroad’s claims department. Counsel for plaintiff attempted to secure admission of these statements as business records under 28 U.S.C. § 1732. After much testimony and careful consideration, the late Chief Judge Henderson ruled that the statements were not admissible. Despite this ruling, plaintiff’s counsel, by posing hypothetical questions not based on the evidence and *1299by referring to the contents of the statements in attempts to refresh the recollection of witnesses, ensured that the jury learned of the contents of the statements. Furthermore, counsel in summation castigated the railroad for doing what it had a perfect right to do — objecting to the admission of inadmissible evidence. These acts by counsel, to which proper objection was made, must have seriously affected the defense and the size of the jury’s verdict, $430,000; in my opinion, they mandate reversal of the judgment and a new trial.
The evidence before Judge Henderson indicated that the claims department of the railroad took statements from employees in personal injury cases in its discretion, usually when it thought there might be litigation. These statements were not used by the railroad to promulgate safety rules. After considering the Supreme Court decision in Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943), the Seventh Circuit decision in Leon v. Penn Central Co., 428 F.2d 528 (7th Cir. 1970), and our decisions in Pekelis v. Transcontinental & Western Airlines, Inc., 187 F.2d 122 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 951, 71 S.Ct. 1020, 95 L.Ed. 1374 (1951), and Puggione v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 286 F.2d 340 (2d Cir. 1961), Judge Henderson concluded that the statements were not admissible. Since in Puggione we said that trial judges have discretion in admitting such statements, 286 F.2d at 344, it is difficult to argue that Judge Henderson was wrong. Certainly plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof in showing that the statements were made in the regular couse of business. Be that as it may, the function of correcting any such errors by Judge Henderson lies in this court, not in self-help remedies by plaintiff’s counsel which violate and circumvent the rulings of the trial judge.
One statement which was excluded was made by the train’s engineer, Daniel Rogers. Rogers wrote that as the train went under the cables he heard a noise on the roof of the cab. He leaned outside the window and saw the cable whipping around the roof. He then went back into the cab and applied the train’s brakes in a service, not an emergency, application.
Even though there was no competent evidence in the record to support the hypothetical question, plaintiff’s counsel asked a retired locomotive engineer how long it would take an engineer who heard a noise on top of his cab to look out the window, see a cable, and apply his brakes in a service application. Objection to this question was sustained. A minute later counsel asked the engineer how long it would take an engineer to look out the window to the top of his cab, come back inside, and apply his brakes. For reasons not clear in the record, ah objection to this question was overruled, but this question only repeated for the jury’s benefit the possibilities of what was contained in Rogers’ statement which had been excluded.
The majority tries to excuse this behavior by implying that hypothetical questions can be used even if there is no evidence in the record to support the factual assumptions. There is no support for this view. The citation to Wig-more’s treatise does not support this assertion. Wigmore clearly says that such questions “must not include data which there is not a fair possibility of the jury accepting.” J. Wigmore, Evidence § 682, at 805 (3rd ed. 1940) (emphasis original). Our decisions have consistently supported this rule. See Cisneros v. Cities Service Oil Co., 334 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1964); Dworzansky v. Glenn Cartage Co., 192 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1951); Napier v. Greenzweig, 256 F. 196, 203 (2d Cir. 1919); Erie R. Co. v. Linnekogel, 248 F. 389, 392 (2d Cir. 1917). See also Grand Island Grain Co. v. Roush Mobile Homes Sales, Inc., 391 F.2d 35, 40-41 (8th Cir. 1968); Alexandridis v. Jewett, 388 F.2d 829, 834 (1st Cir. 1968); Jackson v. Nelson, 382 F.2d 1016 (10th Cir. 1967); C. McCormick, Evidence § 14, at 33 (2d ed. 1972); Proposed Fed.R.Evid. 703. The only *1300justification for asking these hypothetical questions was to get the contents of Rogers’ statement before the jury.
The behavior was repeated in the questioning of Ernest O’Donnell, the fireman of the train and the only one of the three men in the cab at the time of the accident who was still alive by the time of the trial. O’Donnell testified that he thought that Rogers went into an emergency braking despite plaintiff’s counsel’s leading questions. Counsel then asked O’Donnell if Rogers would know what type of brakes he applied. O’Donnell said that he thought so. Counsel then asked if his recollection would be refreshed if he saw Rogers’ statement. An objection was sustained. Then counsel asked O’Donnell if Rogers waited until he had looked out the window to apply the brakes. O’Donnell said that it was possible; counsel replied, “No, not only possible.” At this point it was not clear who was examining and who was testifying. While it may be proper to attempt to refresh a witness’ recollection with someone else’s statement, it is clearly improper to refer to the statements by the name of the person who made the statement, as counsel did several times here, and in combination with leading questions ensure that the jury learns the contents of the statement.
Similar episodes occurred in regards to the statement of the deceased railroad employee, William Hooley, whom the Emerson-Garden Company, plaintiff’s employee, contacted about securing a flagman from the railroad for the site where the power lines crossed the tracks. One witness was asked if Hooley’s statement would refresh his recollection on whether Hooley made a phone call, and then later he was asked if it was true that Hooley called Harry Calahan, the Chief Clerk of the Buffalo Terminal, about getting a flagman. The witness had no knowledge of the matter and the only purpose of the question was to get the contents of Hooley’s statement before the jury.
To compound these abuses, counsel in summation castigated the railroad for not giving the jury all the facts. He even went so far as to say that the only break plaintiff ever had was that the railroad accidentally turned over the statement of the engineer and only then did they “begin to find out some facts.” The district court then admonished the jury, as it had done several times previously, on the problems of hearsay evidence. Later on during plaintiff’s counsel’s summation, defendant twice moved for a mistrial. The first motion came after another attack on defendant for keeping evidence from the jury; the second came after some inflammatory remarks at the end of summation. Judge Henderson once again admonished the jury after the second motion but by this time admonitions were of little use. Only a new trial could correct the effects of counsel’s actions.
The acts of plaintiff’s counsel here strike at the heart of judicial control over the admission of evidence and a fair trial on the evidence properly received; they are certainly as prejudicial as referring to defendant as being a member of the Mafia, Koufakis v. Carvel, 425 F.2d 892, 901-908 (2d Cir. 1970), or referring to the fact that defendant was insured, Cuccarese v. Soloman, 405 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1969); Brown v. Walter, 62 F.2d 798 (2d Cir. 1933). It was error for Judge Henderson to deny defendant’s motions for a new trial, for as we noted in Koufakis a trial judge has an affirmative duty to protect parties from grossly improper tactics.
In cases such as this where counsel deliberately and repeatedly disregards the court’s ruling and accomplishes by indirection what has been prohibited, the only sanction which fits the transgression is the setting aside of the verdict and the granting of a new trial. Any admonishment or lamentation is of no consequence. Unless trial attorneys know that any result which may have been achieved by tactics which ignore *1301and evade the trial judge’s rulings will be set aside and nullified, they will pay little attention to those rulings.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.