A few weeks ago (see Oct. 27, Oct. 29) a jury decided to hold the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68 percent to blame for the first World Trade Center bombing, and the terrorists themselves only 32 percent responsible. Now the authority has filed court papers declaring that the verdict “shocks the conscience” and urging that it be set aside. According to the motion, the outcome in the case “stemmed directly from the court’s jury instructions and verdict sheet interrogatories that violated the Port Authority’s fundamental right to a fair trial.” The authority also faults Judge Nicholas Figueroa for “banning testimony from terrorism experts called by the authority,” and for asserting that he would be justified in overturning a defense verdict should the jury return one. (Anemona Hartocollis, “Port Authority Seeks Voiding of Jury Verdict”, New York Times, Dec. 7). Andy MacCarthy has a comment at National Review Online.
Update: Port Authority seeks voiding of WTC verdict
A few weeks ago (see Oct. 27, Oct. 29) a jury decided to hold the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68 percent to blame for the first World Trade Center bombing, and the terrorists themselves only 32 percent responsible. Now the authority has filed court papers declaring that the verdict “shocks the […]
2 Comments
“asserting that he would be justified in overturning a defense verdict should the jury return one”
Wow – can a judge actually do that? Assert it directly to the jury like that, I mean. If so, WHAT is the point of the jury again?!?
How sweet of the jury to decide that someone with lots of money had to compensate the plaintiffs for their obvious hurt and damages. The defense should be allowed to tell the jurors that they themselves should pay if they believed that somebody–just anybody handy with gobs of money–should pay the plaintiffs. The jurors might just as well have gone to the NYSE, picked out some specialists, and told them to pay up.