Friday, October 8, 2010

Attorney sanctioned for comments and attitude during trial; but Ct does not declare a mistrial

Pharmalot has a story (here) about Gary Douglas, a plaintiff's attorney who represented a client who claimed Fosamax caused her to develop osteonecrosis. A few days ago, the judge in the case hit Douglas with a $2,500 sanction due to what has been described elsewhere as his manic and outrageous conduct during trial. According to the story, Douglas referred to another trial when he should not have done so, attacked the FDA during his summation over the way the agency is funded, characterized the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry for having an “incestuous relationship,” compared the FDA’s ability to monitor drug safety with the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, improperly injected his own opinion concerning evidence into his summation, improperly referred to adverse event reports, accused Merck and its attorneys of hypocrisy, repeatedly disparaged defense witnesses and acted rudely, using sarcasm, gestures, imitations, mockery, singing, derogatory tones, laughing and what the judge called "fooling around’ and making fun.” The judge's order is available here.

Although I have not looked at the record, it does sound like the totality of the circumstances justified imposing sanctions, but I have to say that I don't have that much of a problem with the part about the comments during the closing argument. After all, the FDA is underfunded and its relationship with the pharmaceutical companies is questionable. Was it relevant in the case? Was there evidence in the case to support the claim? I don't know... but assuming there was some relevance and some reference to it, I would have let this go as examples of acceptable rhetoric. The defendant would have its turn to counter the statements. They were not so damaging.... Go here for the full story.

But the story does not end there. Once the jury came back with an $8 million verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants (and their supporters) are complaining that the plaintiff's lawyer's antics should have resulted in a mistrial and that they should be granted a new trial. See here. The court, however, found no need for a new trial because the lawyer's conduct did not touch on the key evidence of the case. Instead, the judge reduced the judgment from the $8 million awarded by the jury to $1.5 million - which is half of what the plaintiff wanted.

Supporters of the defendant's position have argued (here) that the fact the plaintiff’s told the jury that his client needed $3 million as full compensation for her injuries and the jury awarded $8 million is "a big, flashing, incontrovertible sign that counsel’s advocacy improperly influenced the jury." "What else could possibly explain that verdict?"

Well, since I have not seen the record, I really don't know. But I can say this: no, the verdict, by itself, is not an incotrovertible sign of anything other than the fact that the jury thought $8 million would be a better result than the one the lawyer asked for. And why could that be the case? Maybe the jury thought the lawyer was incompetent and that the evidence showed the client should be better compensated; maybe the jury wanted to impose punitive damages to punish the defendant but couldn't so they added more zeros to the compensatories; maybe the jury wanted to "nullify"; maybe the jury was incompetent... who knows?

As even the defendant's supporters have argued, "attempts to ascertain the prejudicial effect of conduct are necessarily based on speculation about the effect of that conduct on a jury." Thus, at least from what I have seen so far, I think the judge was justified in denying the request for a new trial. Since I am as intolerant of improper conduct as the next guy, I am certainly willing to be convinced otherwise, but that's what I am saying now.... The judge should deal with the conduct by imposing sanctions or contempt, not by giving the defendant a new trial. has more on the story here. AboutLawsuits has the story here.

No comments:

Post a Comment