Haste Makes Waste When Trying A Case
At 10:00 p.m. on July 3, 2008, a Wilson County jury began its deliberations it a medical malpractice case. At 10:45 p.m., the jury returned a verdict which found that the defendants were not negligent. The trial judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, pursuant to Rule 59(a)(9), on the grounds that the jurors rendered “a hurried verdict driven by a desire to finish with the case so that they could enjoy the three day Fourth of July weekend.”
In Boykin v. Wilson Medical Center, et al, (No. COA09-450, filed December 22, 2009), the N.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The appellate opinion makes clear that the trial judge was in a hurry to finish the case by July 4. On July 1, court was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. On July 2, court was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The trial judge crammed what should have been a seven day trial into four days.
The appellate opinion begs the question of why the trial judge was in such a rush. The only explanation, such as it is, appears in the Appellant’s Brief. It contends that the judge wanted to finish the trial that week, because he was scheduled to preside at the July 7 session of court in Edgecombe County.
Particularly problematic was the choice offered by the trial judge to the jury before the jury began its deliberations at 10 p.m. on July 3. The judge asked the jury whether it wanted to begin its deliberations and finish up that night or whether it wanted to return on the morning of the Fourth of July to deliberate. The jury elected to “git r done” that night.
To the trial judge’s credit, he decided upon further reflection that this choice put too much pressure on the jury “to depart from a process of calm, fair, and unhurried deliberation.” The appellate court decided that the trial judge was entitled to correct his own error by granting the plaintiff a new trial. It takes a good trial judge to acknowledge his mistake and to correct it.
Comments