Summary
The Massachusetts Superior Court denied defendants’ motion for a new trial in a personal-injury action arising from a bus striking a pedestrian. The court addressed allegations of judicial bias, the court’s questioning of the defendant driver, and the proposed testimony of an expert whose law firm had represented the defendants’ insurer. The court concluded that the jury instructions and the court’s conduct did not warrant a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court's handling of proposed cross-examination concerning an expert witness's possible bias warranted a new trial.
- Whether the trial judge's questioning of the bus driver created an impression of judicial bias or otherwise warranted a new trial.
- Whether the court's final jury instructions adequately neutralized any possible inference that the judge had an opinion about the facts or the proper verdict.
Holdings
- Cross-examination of an adversary's expert witness on the issue of bias is a matter of right rather than discretion, and an expert is not immune from impeachment by evidence of bias or interest.
- A trial judge may ask questions of a witness, including a direct, non-leading question intended to clarify an important issue that counsel did not address, without thereby demonstrating judicial bias.
- The defendants did not establish that the court was biased or that its conduct deprived them of a fair trial; the motion for a new trial was denied.
Key quotations
“You should not consider anything I have said or done during the trial in ruling on motions or objections, or in comments to the attorneys, or in questions to witnesses, or in setting forth the law in these instructions — as any indication of my opinion as to how you should decide the case.” (16 Mass. L. Rptr. at 790-791)
“Cross-examination of an adversary’s expert witness on the issue of bias is a matter of right, and not of discretion.” (16 Mass. L. Rptr. at 791)
“The question asked Mr. Rice was “did he have any explanation.” It was a direct, non-leading question consisting of an invitation for Mr. Rice to tell the jury his side of the story.” (16 Mass. L. Rptr. at 792)
Factual background
On September 2, 1998, a bus driven by Norman C. Rice struck and permanently injured pedestrian Odin Anderson at the intersection of Stanhope Street and Cardinal O’Connell Way in Boston. Rice was employed by Partners Healthcare, the registered owner of the bus. During trial, defendants sought to call Edward S. Rooney, an attorney involved in an earlier related case, as an expert, but objected to cross-examination concerning Rooney's law firm's work for AIG, the insurer for the defendants. The judge also asked Rice why he had not seen Anderson before the collision.
Procedural history
Plaintiff was permanently injured when a bus driven by Norman Rice struck him while Rice was attempting to turn left in Boston. The case was tried to a jury in June 2003. Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the judge was biased and improperly questioned Rice; the Superior Court denied the motion.