Cruz v. MUNICIPALITY OF DORADO
780 F. Supp. 2d 157
D.P.R.2011Background
- Civil case Báez-Cruz v. Municipality of Dorado; civil rights relating to police conduct; trial interrupted on Feb 28, 2011 due to defense counsel’s medical issues; defense sought withdrawal and new counsel; motion for mistrial filed after extended pretrial and trial delays; court denied mistrial and declined to grant Rule 60(b)(6) relief; proceedings continued in civil district court under First Circuit precedent.
- Prior counsel’s alleged gross negligence and possible mental illness were central to the mistrial motion; defense asserted extraordinary circumstances to justify relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).
- Court noted civil cases lack Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance right; considered Rule 60(b)(6) relief but found only extraordinary circumstances with client diligence could warrant relief; substantial public-record discussion of counsel’s performance occurred.
- Trial ultimately proceeded with new counsel; court denied mistrial and alternative remedies; ruling emphasizes client bears consequences of chosen counsel in the civil context.
- Court acknowledged cross-cutting concerns about attorney conduct but concluded the defense did not demonstrate the requisite extraordinary circumstances or client diligence to warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief or mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mistrial warranted due to prior counsel’s conduct | Báez-Cruz argues gross negligence justified mistrial | Dorado argues attorney’s mental illness constituted extraordinary circumstances | Mistrial denied. |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief is available for attorney conduct | Plaintiffs seek relief based on attorney mishandling | Defendant asserts extraordinary circumstances with diligence shown | Rule 60(b)(6) relief denied. |
| Whether civil cases permit ineffective assistance standards like Strickland | Sixth Amendment standard applies to criminal only | Civil cases lack constitutional right to effective counsel | Strickland standard inapplicable; civil standard applied. |
| Whether denial of mistrial affects ability to resolve case efficiently | Continued delays prejudice plaintiffs | Continued trial necessary to resolve case | No mistrial; alternative remedies denied. |
| Whether court should modify pretrial order or recall witnesses | Plaintiffs seek amendments to remedy perceived prejudice | Defendant argues against further delay | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cobos v. Adelphi Univ., 179 F.R.D. 381 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (exceptional circumstances may justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief for attorney illness; client diligence required)
- United States v. Cirami II, 563 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1977) (support for extraordinary circumstances in attorney-misconduct cases)
- United States v. Cirami I, 535 F.2d 736 (2d Cir.1976) (precedent on attorney conduct and relief standards)
- Nurani v. Marissa by GHR Indus. Trading Corp., 151 F.R.D. 32 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (discusses exceptional circumstances and client diligence)
- Vallejo v. Santini-Padilla, 607 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2010) (illustrates public proceedings and client-attorney relationship considerations)