Posts Tagged ‘Trial’

Over the past 30 years, as the senior and founding partner of the personal injury law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price, LLP, Patrick has obtained outstanding results for victims of automobile, tractor trailer, product liability, dog bite and medical negligence accidents throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. Recently, Pat was recognized by his peers as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in the State of Pennsylvania. Patrick is Board Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, President of the NEPA Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocacy, a member of the Board of Governors of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association and also a member of the House of Delegates of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the First Amendment requires access to juror identities in most cases.  However, juror addresses need not be disclosed. “Disclosing jurors’ names furthers the objective of a fair trial to the defendant and gives assurances of fairness to society as a whole,” Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy wrote in a 20-page opinion.The Supreme Court’s decision involved a case that focused on the 2003 western Pennsylvania murder trial of a podiatrist accused of suffocating his wife. The Westmoreland County trial judge withheld the names of jurors. The state Superior Court upheld that ruling, and two Pittsburgh news organizations appealed to the state’s highest court.

What to do about juror identities is an issue of growing importance to judges nationwide as more high-profile trials play out on cable and network television – often with jurors interviewed as soon as the verdict is in. The news organizations – Tribune-Review Publishing Co. and WPXI Inc. – contended that revealing the jurors’ names and addresses would bolster confidence in the judicial system.

Cappy wrote that juror names were generally available to the public as far back as colonial days, noting that the jurors in the Aaron Burr trial were listed in court records. The practice continues today, he went on, as prospective jurors often are identified during jury selection in open court.

Disclosing the names, Cappy went on, “allows the public to participate in the judicial process and furthers the fairness and the appearance of fairness of the criminal trial, since the public can confirm the impartiality of the proceedings and the prospective jurors are more likely to tell the truth.”

Cappy said that in some circumstances disclosing names could raise concerns for jury safety, tampering or harassment. Names could be withheld in some instances, he said, or perhaps until a case was decided.  But Cappy said such action “must be supported by specific findings demonstrating that there is a substantial probability that an important right will be prejudiced by publicity and that reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect that right.” Cappy said the refusal to disclose jurors’ identities in the Westmoreland County case was unwarranted.

John P. Finnerty, Esquire

In Urmann v. Rockwood Casualty Insurance Company, 905 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. July 31, 2006), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion when it approved a settlement in which the workers’ compensation carrier was not fully compensated for it’s lien and most of the settlement was apportioned to loss of consortium.

John Urmann was injured in a work-related, single-car accident. As a result of the accident, he received workers’ compensation benefits and also pursued a third party claim. The initial offer of settlement in the third party case was $25,000 but after mediation, the case was settled for $300,000, with $250,000 being apportioned to Mrs. Urmann’s loss of consortium claim, and $50,000 to Urmann’s bodily injury claim. The civil trial court approved the settlement. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed the approval because its recovery from the $50,000 portion of the settlement would have left its lien substantially less that what it was owed.

Rockwood Casualty Insurance Company argued that the Urmanns unilaterally apportioned the settlement funds with the majority of the money going towards the consortium claim and, thus, violated Section 671 of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
The Superior Court held that Rockwood did not present any evidence of an improper apportionment and that the trial court was not in violation of the decision of Pendleton v. WCAB (Congoleum Corp.), 625 A.2d 187 (Pa. Commw. 1993) because there was an agreement with the third party and an adjudication by the trial court after reviewing the agreement and after a hearing.
After reviewing the evidence presented before the trial court, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion when it determined that the Urmann’s had presented sufficient “non-economic” evidence in support of their petition to approve the settlement agreement. The Court noted that the unusual facts of the case supported apportionment since claimant was oblivious to or unaware of his limitations from brain injuries and his spouse was the true victim of his personality changes, and no public policy imperative existed to require maximization of carrier’s subrogation interests.

Thomas P. Cummings, Esq.

In the case of Cleary v PennDot, the Commonwealth Court ruled that it was proper to hold PennDot in contempt of Court for not following a Court Order. Mr. Cleary received several traffic citations which were eventually dismissed. In the meantime PennDot issued a notice of license suspension. Mr. Cleary appealed to the Court. After a brief hearing the trial judge ordered PennDot to correct Mr. Cleary’s driving record. When PennDot failed to follow the Court order, the trial judge held PennDot in contempt of court and ordered it to pay a $1400.00 penalty. The trial judge’s decision was upheld and PennDot was ordered to pay the penalty.