Thursday, June 20, 2024

It is tough to overturn a jury verdict on appeal

This case went to trial in the Northern District of New York. Plaintiff is an inmate who claims correction officers attacked him, causing him serious injuries. The jury ruled for the officers, and plaintiff appeals. The Court of Appeals affirms the verdict, reminding us once again that it is quite hard to upset a jury verdict on appeal. 

The case is Barnes v. Rock, a summary order issued on June 13. Many trial court rulings are discretionary with the judge. That makes it hard to challenge their rulings on appeal, even if the trial court got it wrong. In order to get a new trial on the basis of the district court's rulings, you have to show an abuse of discretion and that the judge's errors affected the verdict. Again, hard to do.

Plaintiff says the trial court got it wrong in not giving the jury an adverse inference charge on missing video footage that plaintiff claims would have supported his case. But the trial court did allow plaintiff's lawyer to make that argument to the jury during closing arguments. Attorney argument is not as compelling as a trial court adverse inference jury instruction, but that determination is up to the judge. 

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court should not have taken the retaliation claim away from the jury. The judge said there was not enough evidence for plaintiff to win the case. This can be a winning argument: normally, juries decide what happened, and trial courts risk a re-trial if they prematurely dismiss a claim during trial. Plaintiff loses this argument, however, because the jury verdict that the officers did not subject plaintiff to excessive force precludes any retaliation argument, which evidently turned on whether the officers used excessive force.

An interesting argument here is that plaintiff did not get a fair trial because the trial court ordered him to wear shackles in the courtroom. Imagine what the jury is thinking when the plaintiff-inmate is wearing shackles during trial. But there is an "abuse of discretion" standard of review on arguments like this. We leave it to the trial judge to decide these matters.

No comments: