*1 129 adequately should the balm wbicb provide would here, in actions because feelings, wounded heal the is moved litigant proverbial kind the money.” thing than “the principle more Belcher. Keating, Appellant, v. December 1955. Before 1, C.
Argued J., Steen, JJ. Bell, Musmanno, Steaene, Jones, *2 Nochem 8. with him Charles M. Solomon Winnet, appellant. and Fox, O’Brien & for Rothschild, Franlcel, Thomas Raeburn him with Wil- White, Jr., White, appellee. liams & Scott, January Opinion by 1956: 12, Mr. Justice Bell, trespass very Plaintiff in sued to recover for injuries severe in received a collision between a motorcycle passenger, on which he was a and an auto- operated by mobile Harold who is not never Crew, party was a to this action. The returned a verdict in favor of the the Court defendant, below refused grant plaintiff thereupon a new and the trial, took this appeal. motorcycle, driving
Jensen, driver was northerly Upper direction on Limekiln Pike Dublin Township, Montgomery County. point The Pike at straight where the accident occurred was for three- quarters of a mile. The road varied in width from 18 to 21 feet and was divided a white line in the center. motorcycle following Jensen’s defendant’s automo- proper bile, was on the namely, right side, proceeding hand side of the road, north on Lime- kiln Pike. Plaintiff testified that Jensen blew his horn signify passing his intention of who defendant, driving about 40 miles an hour; defendant then five Jensen to come when by; Jensen waved pulled and had car feet the rear of defendant’s or six although drifted to its defendant’s car cut to pass, left — caus- of the road —thus side his own remaining still motorcycle оf the some part a collision between ing aas automobile, rear fender of defendant’s the left left with collided motorcycle result of which direction. in the opposite car coming of Crew’s side road. car was on his side proper Crew’s auto- in the south bound a passenger Defendant and car that defendant’s denied car) mobile (Crew’s ear testi- of Crew’s manner. driver any swerved aid materially but did not fied on behalf of the plaintiff, waved denied that he ever case. Defendant *3 although to pass him, hand or to Jensen signaled his to pass for be an invitation at best this would an all-clear command to or pass when and not a safe, A. 2d Pa. 101 113, Cf. Lewis v. 376 signal. Quinn, 109, that the motorcycle 382. Defendant further testified it him of his car when alongside was behind and not ran into car. Crew’s the trial differed substan-
Plaintiff’s
at
testimony
officer
from the
statement he
a
tially
gave
police
signed
at
after
the accident. The
state-
hospital
signed
made
reference to
of
any waving
no
incidentally,
ment,
nor
any
or similar
defendant
was
signal
the hand
seen
other witness. Plaintiff at the
by any
such signal
of
and
knowledge
signed
trial denied
his
statement
thereto.
It is clear from the
signature
denied
also
that the
must have believed defendant and
jury
verdict
testified in his favor. The negligence
who
the witnesses
so
the driver
obvious
motorcycle,
of Jensen,
n
and the
negligence of
defendant
so
flagrant,
and
it is
or
clear that
non-existent,
jury
doubtful
it
in the
verdict which
could
brought
only
justly
have
(cid:127) n
rendered.
complaint
heard
makes the oft
Appellant
prejudiced against
unfair and was
trial
em
the other side was
and thаt
of
testimony
case,
case or the
Court’s
while his
phasized
charge,
or sketchily
of his witnesses was
testimony
lightly
denied
and
consequently
disparagingly treated,
Penn
of
fair trial.
in the Commonwealth
Evex*yone
course
to a fair and impartial
is of
entitled
sylvania
must
but that does not mean that a trial
trial,
“a mere moderator”:
v.
133 un- and сlearly he comments and for his sonable ground un- their it is on the impresses questionably judg- their the facts and recollection of and derstanding witnesses’ testimony ment of witnesses’ credibility prevails. A. 93 372 402, 421,
In v. Pa. Patskin, Commonwealth 367 “In v. Chambers, we said: Commonwealth 2d 704, : ‘It 164) Pa. 79 A. 2d this Court 201, said, (page 159, not the court, is the exclusive of the province jury, credi all the decide inferences facts, therefrom, to be and effect bility witnesses and weight to all of the the main given testimony. purpose While of a is to state and re judge briefly law explain view the it is always and some evidence, privilege times the of a trial duty his own judge express opin ion, including opinion of and effect of weight the evidence or points its weakness strength even the or innocence of guilt the defendant and the verdict which, jury should judgment, render, (1) there is provided reasonable ground any state ment he may make; and (2) clearly leaves to the jury the right to decide all the facts and every question involved case, regardless any opinion court thereon: Commonwealth v. 232 Pa. Cunningham, 81 A. 609, 611, 711; Commonwealth v. 364 Pa. Foster, 72 A. 288, 2d 293, 279; Commonwealth v. 361 Simmons, Pa. A. 65 391, 407, 2d 353; Commonwealth v. Watts, Pa. A. 92, 358 56 2d 97, 81; Commonwealth v. Jones, Pa. 341 A. 541, 2d 551, 19 389; Commonwealth v. Nafus, ” 303 Pa. 154 418, 420-1, A. 485.’ Commonwealth v. 367
Chambers,
Pa.,
supra,
also quoted with approv
al in Commonwealth v.
378 Pa.
Kloiber,
412,
106
416,
A. 2d
and in Commonwealth
820,
v.
Lance,
Pa. 293,
While the aforesaid rule was laid down in murder it is eases, equally applicable civil eases wheie money *5 134 of a life is involved. trial However,
instead man’s own should be right express opinion Judge’s only we when facts warrant exercised, repeat, Moreover “Judges be aided. should thereby Justice will ‘the and most element first essentiаl forget never impartial trial a wise, learned, compe in a v. 356 ”: DiBona Pa. 51 A. judge.’ P.T.C., 204, 216, tent 768. 2d a of
Prom the bare we cannot reading record, say the trial Court committed reversible error either the trial in charge in the conduct of or its to the jury. Judgment affirmed. by Opinion
Dissenting : Mr. Justice Musmanno as a as trial 10 years In all 20 a my years judge, I 4 doubt appellate trial lawyer, years bench, read for speech that I a more effective ever heard than the one 'which the defendant in a case negligence in in at one the record the case bar —the de- appears Joseph Honorable L. of the Court livered Kun speech Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. masterpiece partisan appeal guise is a its under juristic its call a unilateral verdict logic, name of and its to a appeal impartiality, single track over a double thinking argumenta- track tion.
From the moment Frank plaintiff, Keating, into courtroom on his hobbled crutches Kun’s no chance of had more verdict than he has gaining shortened leg re-grow to its seeing pre-acci- of ever I direct attention will first to the length. Judge’s dent take up and then his attitude charge throughout reflected against trial which bias plaintiff’s case as it unjust was as obvious and as intransi- it was uncalled-for. gent *6 briefly On as follows: are the lawsuit facts of
The passenger Keating plaintiff awas the 1951, October 6, by operated motorcycle being Jensen Edward aon Upper northwardly Pike Limekiln direction on speed County, Township, Montgomery at a Dublin highway, per the hour. On same miles to 45 about 40 proceeding speed, direction in the same a similar and at motorcycle, H. William the defendant of the ahead Intending driving automobile. a Packard Belcher was pass horn, twice sounded Jensen the automobile, to according Keating, to whereupon, Belcher waved to that he denied so waved. come ahead. Jensen to Jensen actually happened the acci- time of at the exact What trial. The of fact at the became the issue dent pass began to the moment Jensen that at contended the left rear of the left, Belcher turned to Belcher, coming the front of the motor- car into contact with by cycle another car balance and was struck which lost opposite Buick) coming (a the the direction. As from plain- and the of the collision Jensen was killed result injuries harrowing gravе tiff whose details sustained The as indicated need not described here. be defendant, that he motioned Jensen to come ahead denied above, entirely and he testified also that he was unaware motorcycle the behind him until he heard crash and motorcycle persons flying through the saw two th$ air. resulting simple
The factual issue was a one. The plaintiff maintained that the without defendant, warn- motorcycle’s ing, path left swerved into after motorcycle proceed he had invited the forward. The defendant insisted that he did not move into the motor- cycle’s presumably way, motorcycle but driver carelessly ran into the rear of If his car. the accident happened by plaintiff, as described he was entitled happened if it to a as the verdict; defendant narrated According defendant was dne verdict. it, Judge’s jury reject charge, was to however, regardless of the contentions claim, respective parties. enlighten purpose judge’s
The instruction is of a applicable ascer- the law to the facts reading tained them. But a of the record before us Judge’s charge reveals bears no resemblance to a calm recital of facts and a reflective measured, application pertinent charge law those facts. judicial pronouncement. speech, was not a It an was a *7 appeal argument, ringing a for the vindication of de- Although sought explain away every fendant. it item culpability of the evidence directed toward the up point by point it took the defendant, case rеplied all-annihilating to each with the condemna- tion of an advocate. jury accepted speaker partisan
If the had the as a they might regarded still have themselves free to reach finding in judg a consonance with their untrammeled speaker standing jury ment. But the was not at the lawyer, exhorting, box rail aas he was in black robes, from the bench—as the voice the law. And that voice very beginning jury made clear from the the —as compelled appraise picture the the law was —that sounding plaintiff: a death knell to the claims of the “You per must understand the duties that have jurors. by form as You not any are here to be moved approach suggestion per emotional or because, some appears might son on crutches or because as bеfore happen person in case another some killed some They in how or other an accident of some kind. are not * things that decide cases at all.”
* italics, All mine. wrong. not, crutches do While here was The they part if the the case are decide cases, of course, aof violent required as a result to use them they subject are the lawsuit, is the act which target es- for and sneers, sarcasm made the not to be by judge. pecially the trial person has because a who on: “. . . went way does in in an accident some sued was involved
been damages responsible necessarily that he is mean important injured. very person It is to the who fundamentally. The basis understand that satisfactory liability proof jury, and to the preponderance weight of the еvi- of the evidence, qualifications the defendant these dence—mark —that wrong wrong in this of some hind, committed negligence being negligence alleged, being the situation simply or absence of due care under want defined the circumstances.” very in-
It be that at outset will observed conditioning jury, to the structions jurors guard against plaintiff: to be on minds of proven, namely, that the that is defendant “Unless way duty in some failed fellow case *8 proven your unless it to satisfaction that he is man, duty, in that failed to use reasonable that failed care, something prudent person did a would not then he do, there no basis here a verdict is for any badly make it does not how he was in- difference you keep your jured. . . That is what have to mind’s eye you patiently to listen have to on, see, evi- testimony, prоduced, have dence, by you, to be the witnesses have evaluated done, they telling hap- to determine are have whether what inventing something pened creating something or point.....” make a using general language he
While the here is obviously directing himself case and testimony suggesting possibility of al- “invented” though from there is no dark trial crevice whole emerge suspicion. which could a But in the so insidious Judge perceives only unim- conduct the defendant’s peachable “The main and almost correctness: exclusive duty person driving aof who is an automobile is to keep eyes his him. ahead of a matter of As fact, person duty operating fails in his of if an automobile keep eyes he does not of him. his ahead He has to know going, going where he is he look has to аnd see what is only in front and it is in a rare kind him, of case person driving responsible that a car can be for some- thing happens duty, in back of him, because his naturally, going is to see where he is and what condi- tions are ahead of him.” predicated
Since the defendant had his whole de- looking fense on his assertion that he was ahead and motorcycle did not see the Judge, behind him, just quoted, the statement made of the defendant’s as- only proof non-negligence sertion but a demon- duty. stration virtue and fulfillment of But it is exculpate not true that the defendant could himself charge negligence by from simple remark that he looked ahead. What the should have point added at this while the defendant must duty devolving upon look there is a ahead, him also, through the use of any- rear mirror, asсertain if endeavoring pass one is him especially from behind, signal some when one sounds a from behind. neglected throughout here, as indeed addition, he did charge, point out operator that while the car keep must the road ahead in his he vision, must also keep car in the lane in travelling which he is unless gives warning suitable immediately to those to *9 lane. into another he intends enter rear here, it appropriate not regard did apparently tell the plaintiff’s case, discussing he did when “mark these qualifications.” jury looking ahead, After the defendant lauding road blocks to erect insuperable then proceeded He a barricade up path plaintiff. piled in the even surmount, could not jury possibly “ifs” which “Of a if satisfied deserved verdict: a correct of the to stаte course is statement law is in the case are always question trying, if—that ‘F and man capital driving along is capital ‘If ‘W—if in an automobile the usual and he informed way is notice or otherwise of the fact that a car or a motor- him in the cycle alongside of act passing him, passing he has to him to him, see, allow pass, he, inattention through makes a sudden otherwise, if in the of the turn, know, path vehicle attempting pass him, can be responsible. held That is the big .” the case. . ‘if
Over twenty times the a formidable Judge planted “if” in as a barrier charge had to overcome order to reach a decision for the plaintiff. On two occasions the added granitic superstruc- ture to the “if” by announcing that when he said “if” he did not mean an “if.” He ordinary had in mind an “if” with a “I” capital and a “F.” caрital But he never constructed a IF in capital way defend- ant.
Four days after the accident a police officer ques- tioned the plaintiff at the hospital to which he had been borne by ambulance. At the trial the plaintiff repudi- ated some of the him averments attributed to in the statement prepared by the police officer. On this the Judge charged: “When it is suggested a jury that a statement the statement of the man whose state-
140 alleged whether to decide
ment it have be, pre- supposing any man who that the there basis the the invented sents in ease an officer of law, this it, no the ax an law has statement. course officer of Of get anyone; just grind he there to information.” with grind not ax to had an Whether the officer had or Judge developed some- in the and the was was case by arbitrarily assuming thing the thаt less than correct testimony Dealing human officer’s with was sacrosanct. beings being being, not be- an officer is a human and being. yond it Furthermore, the of a human weaknesses innocently possible honestly was that the officer and plaintiff and it is also said, misunderstood what possible plaintiff himself erred in detail some The the accident was still recollection. horror of upon painful up in he was cast, trussed him, many under influence was medicines. The should here been the con- have instructed to reconcile flicting testimony possible using if if and, decide, not, credibility, more cor- standards of which witness rectly recalled what was said. and without Instead, justification, imprimatur placed unimpeachability officer’s branded and, effect, plaintiff a liar.
We have indicated it that was testi- mony suddenly that the car defendant’s turned to the attempted explain away left. The this accusa- by saying country tive evidence that on a road “there drifting swaying is a certain amount of in the mere operation of a car—no car runs on a rail so that it way cannot move one or the other. The wheels, always have a amount know, certain in them shake depending on the kind of road it with is, even driving normal there ais certain amount of deviation.” plaintiff had never that the said car defendant’s swayed wrong swerved side of the He road. enough to to the left, had swerved over said motorcycle. passage But of the block the charge a concession made it seem that incidentally may plaintiff: wrung “It be from the said by and corrobo- here it was conceded morning that thе defend- the man called this rated always always right road, ant was on his side general, supposed I know. where he to be speaking any possible but am not now about deviation, *11 always right the the he never road; he was on side of got you the center see.” over line, “you Judge wheedling
In the addition to the see”, plaintiff something. stated that the Evi- had conceded dently regarded oppo- he indeed an himself, was, only plaintiff’s, nent the an of one concedes to because adversary. judge, ar- to a to an One does not concede impartial Judge this or to an The liked overseer. biter, repeated idea of a that later he it, concession so much adding you.”— the touch “mark debater’s classic of plaintiff asserting right “The the to on the recover ground cycle that the defendant knew that was passing knowledge, he had etc. automobile, etc., travelling path . . . that he was in the the motor- cycle, though away getting never from his side the you.” itas was mark road, conceded, plaintiff We will recall that the said that the de- motorcycle fendant had the waved on. This was a most important piece of evidence in behalf of the cause. The out set to demolish it. First he ex- plained that waving, the defendant had denied and then he lifted an oratorical sword to defend de- you very denial: “It fendant’s seems me to that have a strong piece help you of evidence to to determine the validity of that statement since the because, Buick car you place was there, because the crash see, took with question put that to car, is, to reasonable going driving suppose Packard the man pass him when someone to to north would wave top right of him? about was Buick, other car, put argument that is You an see, your good dispose according sense own can judgment.” argument legitimate This been a could well have Judge’s it the but was defendant’s counsel make, meretricious it? it was a Moreover, function to make Defendant one. There was no evidence that when the motorcycle Buick there view; was on, waved the plaintiff that the defend- no said evidence that subsequent and there arrival; ant waved the Buick’s perfect defendant no evidence supposed doing exactly do what he was driver, omitting supposed In to do. he was not fact, what very competence in the case— issue as driver was plate of armor indis- sheathed him with until invincibility. infallibility, putability, guns on the turned his statement now motorcycle up along- that the had drawn *12 the rear of car. The rhetor- side the defendant’s ically alongside the car?” And then, asked: “Was having up target, proceeded (but to fire set he not the laboratory compara- ammunition tested in the of with point logic) revealing tive : “On that the most testi- mony morning in the to came this it seems case, me, the he in the most from driver the Buick and was car, position perfect coming see what was him. to toward Obviously going he the because was south and other so, just cycle going the as the Packard, was was. car, north, right looking I mean it. the witness was there at What- happened happen right going ever to was there was eyes.” befоre his perfect posi-
But said that he “most who the position plaintiff tion?” He was no better than the eyes. It before situation the had whole also who position better had the to who decide for the superlative in a apply the to not for the dispute. of evidential matter according to
Although was, of the Buick the driver testify position to perfect to Judge, in the most the deny the de- happened, not did this driver what motorcycle the put to Wave out hand had fendant alchemy how- of bias, the ahead. With to come driver piece of evidence the transformed ever, point plaintiff the defend- a for the into which favored by saying to ask failed counsel ant hand-waving. But question defend- a about driver question. When ask that also not counsel did ant’s goose prejudicе for the sauce kitchen, rules supplied gander. apparently for sauce not same Georgia brought from on a witness The defendant eyes Judge, testify. the dust In the to credibility journey special to this coat of added brought testimony: witness] [the “He traveller’s testify- purpose up way Georgia from all the person ing. didn’t You have to consider whether who any- anything about it or who said he see know did way up Georgia thing brought would be all from testify.” many apart could have been from
There reasons, why any up to tell the one come truth, desire would testify. Georgia particular hap- This from witness army might pened in the be en- well have opportunity get expenses joyed home with all paid. anything powers Nor is there establish that his reliability surpassed of recollection or even those contrary Georgian who testified to what the *13 traveller said. Judge got question damages,
When to the of charge compelled no matter how re- began by speaking injuries”: luctantly, he of “fantastic question injury “In extent some cases of the of damages very sharply the amount of suffered is liti- gated, part sometimes more than even the first of the people because come claim all sorts of case, injuries you fantastic hnow." results, Why Judge say jury: did the to the know”? “You jury There was no evidence that the knew of “fantastic injuries.” Judge Was this statement of the a subtle prejudice jury against maneuver further plaintiff? purpose Whatever the behind the state- it, offensively gratuitous. may hap- ment Was What have pened nothing in other cases had to do the current with case. sight never allowed to lose of point
fact that from possibility of view the that the deserving damages quite remote. Hence: will “Therefore, determine the amount of the verdict... render plaintiff, a verdict for the if course.” negligence When a defendant in a after a case, proper required pay damages, trial, re- the law gards simple justice, eyes this as but in of the payment any damages by the defendant awas saddling injustice: pain, suffering whatever “Now, sug- and inconvenience think that involves—and I gest good compensated it involved bit—should be for, it is to be saddled on this if defendant.” protection
In further of the defendant, now fired several salvos of “Ifs”: “Of course, thing figure about the case. You have to first charged but out, be to the defendant, if if negligence accident part was his fault, on the if defendant resulted in all then the defendant this, has damages.” pay the
145 jury’s de- the Judge apparently to risk feared of “ifs”—even general bombardment on a termination repeat capital he felt constrained Thus, “IF’s”. if damage was he admonitory item of each “if” after the referring to the after compelled Hence, to mention. of $1,085, bills hospital doctors’ the bill of $4,404 item a “recoverable that this was to add he hastened if ” After course to recover, entitled the of wages up he hammered home: taking loss of the item of ” part course the case, come that of “if finally of the the end whole reached Then when damages thunder- it unpleasant he made discussion plaintiff’s approve ously that he did evident Accordingly, any damages getting he unlimbered all. at artillery that I those “It is items heaviest of “Ifs”: his by you, рrop- considered to that are to be referred have erly damages that the conclude as bases for so, if brought in this case in and sued defendant who was thing responsible That is and that for all this. capital capital “F” come “I” and the in, where tig charge, in I said earlier because every thing The case turns on it.” case. Judge completing charge,
Even after det monotony varying still another onated “if,” ” by referring to this one as a “chief ‘if.’ When “ifs” point, counsel asked him to read a thought very Judge “I I he remarked: made that did, jury. That is the the case.” clear to the chief eif in his brief that Plaintiff counsel indicated the Trial argument gestures, with reenforced his oral men- expression, acing dramatic facial and inflec- attitude, talking reproduc- having picture Not voice. tion оf charge do not tion we know whether counsel’s objectively Judge’s description mirrored the actions.' appear reading charge from it But would and in aggressive noting manner in which the in the trial not be participated would itself, difficult to the learned picture Judge accompanying vigorous effects. with histrionic language appropriate no hesitancy have saying
I Kun’S unwar- biases, prejudices, hyperbolic criticisms *15 ranted condemnations turned the out of court and wrote in the history judiciary page a which can be only read with considerable embarrassment and contemplated with unmedicinable regret.
In the case of Commonwealth v. 175 Pa. Claiborne, Ct. Superior the Superior 42, 50, Court, speaking through the able and veteran Judge emphasized, Reno, “ from quoting Com. v. 278 Pa. ‘The 508: Myma, 505, of a practice judge entering into the trial a case as an advocate is emphatically disapproved. judge an occupies exalted and dignified he is the position; one person to whom the rare jury, with exceptions, looks for guidance, from whom the litigants expect absolute An impartiality. expression of fa- indicative vor condemnation is quickly reflected box jury and at the counsel table. To depart from the clear line of duty through expressions or con- questions, conduct, travenes the orderly administration of justice. It has a to tendency take from one of the to parties right fair and impartial as trial, guaranteed under our system of jurisprudence. Judges should refrain from extended examination of witnesses; should they not, during indicate an trial, opinion on the merits, doubt to the witnesses’s or do credibility, anything to indicate a leaning one side or the without other, explaining all these matters are ” them.’ In the case at bar Kun was impervious to all the admonitions laid down Superior Court the Claiborne case, admonitions, incidentally, were propounded for his special benefit because it was
147 trial was a new case in that conduct to Ms due ordered. by the Su already rebuked been has also Kün during demeanor
preme attitude Court for his 215, Pa. 204, v. P.T.C., In of DiBona the case trials. negligence in a the defendant favoritism toward plaintiff’s combined case, to the action and his aversion this plaintiff’s caused hostility counsel, toward with Speak reprimand. language exceptional Court use Maxdy “This said: ing Justice Mr. Chief for the Court, In one. fair not a trial that this record discloses question improper Lyle asking Miss addition to [Judge judge in other page 207, discussed Ktjn] and hos exhibited instances defendant favoritism example, he tility For case and counsel. leading Lyle question: the acci ‘After asked Miss instantly, happened stopped did almost dent the bus *16 replied im is an ‘That she he said, it?’ When ‘Yes’, judge portant point.’ ask witness, A trial not a should leading especially question. Further a such'a child, instantly’ might ‘stopped the bus almost whether more, important point’ showing might its not ‘an be speed approached it when its victim.” (p. 216) example judge’s
Also “An trial un- : Lyle being appears cross- fairness when as Miss plaintiff’s counsel ‘I think is con- she examined, said, judge then The said: ‘Look I don’t fused’. want here, interrupt again by stating people this child I are confused. will not tolerate Mr. Horan.’ that, nothing plaintiff’s There was in the conduct counsel which invited such a rebuke. Plaintiff’s then counsel ‘I said: don’t think that Mr. it Baile had made clear, replied: judge way sir.’ The ‘That not the to conduct interrupting always a like You that. can a ask trial — clarify anything you witness later on to not want. Do interrupt interject and like It comments that. not ques-
right.’ plaintiff’s a answered One of the witnesses by saying, at the scene we learned tion ‘From a witness pedestrian judge ‘You cannot that a The trial said: —’. should know tell what learned from a You witness. by point time.’ At in the trial the this another judge said counsel: ‘Look have here, ‘I before me tried cases before?’ Counsel answered: your judge I think then have, Honor.’ The trial said: you. ruling, ‘Let me instruct When make a do-not I, argue point, exception.’ take an thus rebukes by judge administered thе trial were uncalled language. Judges were made ill-chosen never should forget that ‘the first and most element in essential impartial competent trial wise, learned, judge.’. litigant . . A who is denied this ‘essential ele- ” deprived process ment’ is of ‘due of law.’ reasoning quoted-from
Under the in the above case only I can Keating conclude that Frank here was de- prived process of due of law.
Unless this Court shows suitable action that it judicial tyranny conspicu- will tolerate the kind of ously demonstrated in legal pro- the case at hand, may fession come to the Supreme conclusion that regards type petty Court despotism trifling as of consequence, point geological reality, whereas, very strikes at the judi- foundation of faith our whole system. cial distinguished Kun’s treatment оf the attor-
ney represented reprehensible who *17 lawyer inexcusable. pos- Aside from the fact that a feelings sesses respect and is entitled from the respects, disparagement Cornet he which of counsel dur- ing directly a trial party strikes litigant. at the It is a matter of common jury observation that regards the lawyer personification as a of his client’s cause. every Thus fulmination attorney hurled at the becomes Opinion against exploding This grenade client. length if I were to an inordinate extended would be im- every instance of from the record cull Kun’S unjust former proper, treatment and unfair plaintiff. illus- or two representing One Winnet suffice. trations will dispute dur- already arose that mentioned
I have accuracy taken ing statement the trial as to the following plaintiff the accident. from the Mr. Winnet properly very know desired hospital plaintiff questioned in the while been had injuries. multiple suffering and serious from his was empha- Judge apparently fact loth to see this your following If occurred: “Mr. sized. The Winnet: days please, four statement] was taken [the this Honor hospital. about care : We don’t in the later The Court it under which taken. The circumstances where it was right developed question later. The taken can be signature to the statement. that is his whether now moment. Mr. at the all that is involved That is : Winnet original your Honor? May I statement there, isee ¡better again it it to him : There is. You show The Court ¡bar again. him to the of the Court call : Mr. Winnet hospital. taken Remember : The Court repeat again. taken. Don’t 1 don’t care where was hospital. Certainly, at the That where it was taken they go get the statеment. The man was had to hospital nothing it. time. That has to do with at the complaint signature which Show the you please in this suit. then look was filed And will you, allegedly is shown to at statement which police signed by hospital, taken the local at trying purpose find who went there out happened. looking And now at them what after may signed state or not this statement whether your you, has been shown to whether that *18 150
signature response). (No Can or not. The Court: you Keating? question, answer that Mr. : The Witness nay signature. Mr. Your I still don’t think it is Honor, from Your if taken the statement was Honor, Winnet: hospital I am the man in there, and the man was perfectly willing — n I told before Court: very point. improper, state that im- at this It proper. Go ahead with the examination and then call in the man who took the statement.”
Judge Kun’s charactеrization Mr. con- Winnet’s duct as in it- very improper” improper “improper, self and was bound to disadvantage work to serious Frank Keating. plaintiff, questioning Keating injuries
In about and the pathological injuries, effects of those Mr. Winnet whether asked he had suffered delusions. The interrupted: person “The Court: Does a know when person question? he has delusions? Can ask proven proper That has to be otherwise. When is it person ask suffering ‘Are himself, from de- your lusions?’ Mr. Winnet: Honor? When, When? The Court: How does he know? Winnet: He Mr. your does know, because he Honor, has had treatment. The Court: He cannot know that. Mr. Winnet: hospital. He inwas : He cannot know The Court very From that. fact it is called a delusion means n hedoesn’t know it. about Mr. Winnet: Your Honor, may have had treatment for it while he inwas the hos- рital. Haying thing The Court: treatment for a does not mean he suffers from not seq- at all. It it, is a non uitur. proper we will However, come to that at the presenting In time. his case to the he made no anything mention of like that. Mr. Winnet: No, be- your cause we didn’t stand on it, Honor. However, brought brought out— The Court : It was not out properly. Mr. Winnet: I want to ask him if now he after period he have delusions at did knows what *19 It is that. not know : He would accident. The Court question.” improper an triply improper. un- He was
The here was unfairly judicially criticized he contentious, tenaciously a scien- on inaccurate he and was counsel, patient mental former It true that a tific fact. is not experienced. are There may has not relate what he having by persons in hos- many been who, written books mentally their pitals well described for the have ill, symptoms, and cures. treatments, against Judge’s counsel were animadversions plain- only the whole toward of his attitude reflective any ready apparently at he tiff’s which case, disparage When and belittle. moment to condemn, Mr. plaintiff car far the defendant’s how asked Winnet scoffing right, gone the Court broke in with had your imagi- on “The Court: Don’t draw observation: say honestly, questions you these If can answer nation. you your imagination. try If don’t to draw on but so, questions, conscientiously do but so, can answer you mo- all in fast if don’t do it. This was cannot, you see.” tion, reprehend
Prompt as the was to equally eager support he and scorn his case, giving even to the extent of bolster the defendant’s case, testifying amounted to from almost observations issue in the trial Since whole the bench. path his car into the the defendant swerved whether swayed motorcycle it or whether or drifted to the repeated several times the car was side, to a track: “The Court: not confined have Well, You have to remember the sure. words. You to be not run on an does a track and automobile there know, weaving, amount of is a certain whoever is know, helped. driving. Anyway, way It cannot be 15.2 they gave described when him the horn it, right,
all that, car drifted a little to the then impression was that drifted to the it left a little.” As we remarked neither . . . “The Court: before, motorcycle They were a rail. car nor the on were is a motion and there certain amount side motion, naturally, By Q. . . all the time. the Court: You you? your Q. A. It know don’t Honor. that, Yes, applies only a fixed rail. That not to the auto- motorcycle. trying naturally, but to the But, mobile, motorcycle pass, it an or whether automobile yourself give enough whatever have to room is, pass.” *20 jury Of it was inevitable that the re- course, would Judge turn a verdict for defendant. Since the made speech reply the last and there no one to the inaccuracies and irrationalizations his summation, jury accepted what version of truth constituted justice obviously and returned the he so verdict sought. refusing In motion for a new prejudice against trial, Kun uncloaked his plaintiff by very Opinion: first sentence “The plaintiff presented extraordinary a rather claim.”
The said further: “As we have indicated, was an unusual kind of claim, what really complains about is that the Trial too took by reminding jury frequently much caution too responsibility their basic was to determine whether negligent. approach defendant had been This to the appears necessary conduct of the case is, us, when very injuries resulting there ais case of severe from an unusual kind in which the occurrence, basis a de- liability fendant’s is rather as in nebulous, this case.” liability Whether the defendant’s was “nebulous” really jury was never determined because the was so practically bludgeoned coerced and intimidated, into their can be based on conclusion that no verdict their returning choice had no alone. decision actually rebelling against they without did verdict authority, wearing absolute be- indicia of man who, judgment. their dictated their master and came vigorously dissent. I most Appellant. v. Hales,
Commonwealth Argued C. 1955. Before Steen, J., November 22, *21 JJ. Musmanno Bell, Abnold, Jones, Steaene,