I watched a movie last night, "The Verdict". It was about a lawyer
representing the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit. At the end
of the movie, after a series of pro-defense rulings by the judge, the
jury comes in and announces that they have found for the plaintiff,
and ask the judge whether they are limited in awarding damages to the
amount the plaintiff asked for.

This seemed a little strange to me. In CA, at least, the jury brings
in a verdict of $somuch for the plaintiff. The movie is set in
Boston. Do MA courts use a two-part verdict like that, with the jury
first finding in favor of plaintiff or defendant (I presume
separately on each cause of action) and then retiring to decide the
amount if they decide in favor of plaintiff? Do the courts of any
state? FWIW, the movie was released in 1982.

There were other oddities in the movie. The defense attorneys had
sent an associate from their NY office to seduce the plaintiff's
attorney and act as his informal clerk, meanwhile feeding information
about his strategy to the defense. When he found out about it, his
associate said they had grounds for a mistrial(*), but the lawyer
wanted to keep fighting. Seems to me that when you have a hostile
judge who has put you on an excessively tight schedule(+), it makes
sense to try again and hope for a better judge next time.

But that's a matter of judgement and strategy. My real question is
about the verdict format.

(*) I would think so. I would also think the associate would be
disbarred and other sanctions would be taken against the firm.

(+) The day before trial, the lawyer tried to contact his star expert
witness and found he had gone to the Bahamas. Unstated but pretty
clear was that the defense firm had paid him off or blackmailed him.
A retrial would have given him time to formally subpoena the expert
witness or find another with good credentials. The only one he
could find wasn't even board certified, just a "plain" M.D.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote in message
news:<mem3e05fijtd3psl8d7brusoevgdhi3q7l@4ax.com>... I watched a movie last night, "The Verdict". It was about a lawyer representing the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit. At the end of the movie, after a series of pro-defense rulings by the judge, the jury comes in and announces that they have found for the plaintiff, and ask the judge whether they are limited in awarding damages to the amount the plaintiff asked for.

There's probably quite a bit of artistic license at play here. Juries
do get to ask questions like that, but not at the same time as issuing
a verdict. At any time before reaching a verdict, the jury can have
their foreperson write a note addressed to the judge, which they hand
to the bailiff, who delivers it to the judge in the presence of the
attys for both sides, who then discuss with the judge what his answer
should be, and _then_ they call the jury into the courtroom where the
judge, on the record (written down by the court reporter), reads the
contents of the note, gives his answer, and sends them back to
deliberate some more until they reach a verdict. I _have_ heard of
juries actually asking similar questions. Often, the parties jump to
conclusions about what the question means. You may think such a
question means they've already decided in favor of the plaintiff, but
tain't necessarily so. Which could be why the movie had them issue a
liability verdict and then ask their damages question at the same
time.
This seemed a little strange to me. In CA, at least, the jury brings in a verdict of $somuch for the plaintiff.

AFAIK that's the usual way a "general verdict" is returned in most
states. But there are at least 2 common variations: (1) juries can be
asked to return a "special verdict", in which they are given a set of
written questions to answer regarding their specific factual findings,
which may or may not include an award of a specific amount of damages;
and (2) with the consent of the parties, or by order of the court, a
trial can be "bifurcated", meaning that the jury will first hear and
deliberate on the issue of liability, and then (if a plaintiff verdict
is returned) they will hear additional evidence on the issue of
damages and return to deliberate again on that issue. Sometimes the
liability and damages trials can be separated by weeks or months, and
heard by different juries. Or the parties can concede liability, and
have a damages-only trial. And a case involving a claim of punitive
damages usually also requires a 2-stage trial, since the evidence
required to support the punitives claim (showing the defendant's net
worth and ability to pay) is usually considered highly prejudicial and
not admissible in the compensatory-damages trial. So, first the jury
hears the evidence and deliberates on liability and compensatory
damages, then, if they issue a plaintiff verdict on those issues, they
hear additional evidence and deliberate on punitive damages.
The movie is set in Boston. Do MA courts use a two-part verdict like that, with the jury first finding in favor of plaintiff or defendant (I presume separately on each cause of action) and then retiring to decide the amount if they decide in favor of plaintiff? Do the courts of any state?

AFAIK there's a lot of flexibility possible in any state as to how the
trial will be structured, and creative judges and attys can surely
think of even more new ways. The default choice everywhere AFAIK,
unless someone requests otherwise, is to have a single verdict address
all the issues at once, I guess mainly because that's the simplest and
fastest way.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300

"Barry Gold" <bgold@nyx.net> wrote in misc.legal.moderated:I watched a movie last night, "The Verdict". It was about a lawyerrepresenting the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit. At the endof the movie, after a series of pro-defense rulings by the judge, thejury comes in and announces that they have found for the plaintiff,and ask the judge whether they are limited in awarding damages to theamount the plaintiff asked for.This seemed a little strange to me. ... My real question isabout the verdict format.

It is customary to decide liability and damages at once, but it is
not mandatory.

Occasionally, defendant asks to separate the two phases. The usual
motivation is that the defendant fears when plaintiff presents
evidence of the extent of damage, the jury will be "inflamed" and
determined to make somebody pay, and therefore find against
defendant even if there's really not enough evidence to show
defendant was legally at fault. Separating the determination of
damages avoids this -- but it makes the trial longer.

As far as I know, the court may grant or deny this motion in the
court's discretion.

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) asked:
In CA, at least, the jury bringsin a verdict of $somuch for the plaintiff. The movie is set inBoston. Do MA courts use a two-part verdict like that, with the juryfirst finding in favor of plaintiff or defendant (I presumeseparately on each cause of action) and then retiring to decide theamount if they decide in favor of plaintiff? Do the courts of anystate?

------------
this is a matter of the law of the local jurisdictions. a two-part civil trial
("bifurcated trial") is quite common.

the classic case is a lawsuit for personal injuries where the liability
question is tenuous, but the damages sustained by the plaintiff are horrendous.
in such a situation, the defendant has a valid fear that, notwithstanding the
actual legal liability, a jury will feel sympathy for the injured party and
make a substantial award.

moreover, bifurcated trials have a positive effect upon judicial economy. the
liability part of the trial is often straightforward and brief, but the damages
aspect is often complicated and lengthy. for example, consider a motor vehicle
accident at an intersection where both drivers claim to have had a green light.
the liability part of the case will be pretty simple: both drivers will
testify and the jury will decide which one is lying. if the liability verdict
goes against the plaintiff, the judge (and the court officer, the court clerk,
the stenographer and the judge's law secretary) don't have to waste time
listening to evidence about damages.

however, although bifurcated trials are common in personal injury cases, this
procedure will not be used where the evidence and proofs about damages are
inextricably intertwined with the issues which will resolve liability (for
example, in a case of breach of contract or in a case of fraud).

tiger

tiger123@aol.comXnoXspam (TIGER123) wrote in message
news:<sj58e05m5l9oj2dj2eo63b4kronqsbq3ic@4ax.com>...
moreover, bifurcated trials have a positive effect upon judicial economy.

I respectfully disagree. A bifurcated trial is only economical if the
first jury finds for all defendants. If not, it is quite UNeconomical
because two trials are required.
however, although bifurcated trials are common in personal injury cases, this procedure will not be used where the evidence and proofs about damages are inextricably intertwined with the issues which will resolve liability (for example, in a case of breach of contract or in a case of fraud).

Again, I disagree. Bifurcated trials are rare, even in personal
injury cases. They are inappropriate in a case where the damages
depend on the defendants' conduct, i.e., where punitive or exemplary
damages are available and requested.