Plaintiff Shahidah Hazziez sued defendant City of Kansas City, Missouri in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri raising a claim of retaliation. Defendant City of Kansas City, Missouri moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or a new trial, and for remittitur.
Issues Before the Court
The court addressed several issues of alleged attorney misconduct during the trial. Plaintiff’s counsel exhibited hostility towards the defendant, defense counsel, and the court. In one incident, plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Keenan tossed a copy of a case at defense counsel Ms. Kelly, triggering a confrontation that required sheriff deputies to intervene. In another exchange, plaintiff’s counsel Ms. Myers called defense counsel Ms. Kelly a racist and continued screaming at her despite the court’s attempts to stop the outburst. Throughout the trial, Mr. Keenan accused the court of being unfair and denying his client the right to a fair trial.
The court also noted that defense counsel improperly cross-examined the plaintiff regarding a municipal charge, causing the plaintiff to break down into tears in front of the jury. The court allowed this line of questioning over objection, mistakenly believing it was a state assault conviction.
Legal Analysis
Jury Instructions: The court conceded that it was an error to submit Instruction No. 15 to the jury, as it misled and misdirected the jury, thereby prejudicing the defendant. The proper instruction to be given was M.A.I. 34.02, a neutral instruction that does not suggest the court’s opinion on facts or issues in the case.
Damages: The court found that plaintiff’s counsel, rather than the plaintiff, presented evidence of the plaintiff’s damages during closing argument. This tactic prevented the defendant from cross-examining the plaintiff on damages, denying due process. The defendant was given no notice of the damage amounts before trial and was denied the right to effectively challenge the validity of the amounts presented to the jury.
Conclusion
The court granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial due to the errors made during the trial proceedings. The court denied the defendant’s motion for remittitur as moot in light of the ruling on the motion for a new trial.
Schrag on Law 