Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Christopher Barrella v. Village of Freeport, New York, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 17-446 · judgment March 13, 2018
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Second Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Question presented
May a lawyer tell the jury to render the verdict they would want if they were in the shoes of a party or another person with an interest in the case? This “golden rule” argument, when made as to the jury’s determination of damages, is prohibited and can justify a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) in every circuit to have considered the issue. But when a lawyer asks the jurors to determine liability by imagining themselves in the shoes of an interested party, the circuits are split on the propriety of this prejudicial practice. The question presented is: Whether a lawyer’s invitation to the jury to imagine themselves in the shoes of an interested party in determining either liability or damages is improper, and may therefore serve as grounds for a new trial under Rule 59(a), as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have concluded, or whether such argument is improper only in the context of damages, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have held.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Gregory Jacob Dubinsky
Holwell Shuster & Goldberg, LLP
For respondent
Scott Dewitt Piper
Harris Beach PLLC
Proceedings
- Feb 19 2019Petition DENIED.
- Jan 30 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
- Jan 29 2019Reply of petitioner Christopher Barrella filed.
- Jan 16 2019Brief of respondents Village of Freeport, New York, et al. in opposition filed.
- Jan 16 2019Letter of January 16, 2019, from respondent Mayor Anthony Harwick sumbitted.
- Dec 27 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 16, 2019, for all respondents.
- Dec 21 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 17, 2018 to January 16, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 14 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 17, 2018 to January 16, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 14 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 16, 2019.
- Nov 07 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 17, 2018.
- Nov 02 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 17, 2018.
- Nov 02 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 2, 2018 to December 17, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 01 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 2, 2018 to December 17, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 01 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 2, 2018)
- Jun 25 2018Application (17A1399) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until October 1, 2018.
- Jun 20 2018Application (17A1399) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 31, 2018 to September 29, 2018, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.