George A. Straub v. Reading Company
220 F.2d. 177 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sustained and calculated improper conduct by an attorney, which results in a biased and distorted presentation of issues to the jury and deprives the opposing party of a fair trial, constitutes reversible error requiring a new trial.
Facts:
- George Straub worked as an assistant chief timekeeper for the Reading Company.
- While working in the Reading Company's Philadelphia terminal, Straub fell from a ladder in a storeroom and sustained injuries.
- Straub alleged that the fall caused a serious injury to his back.
- Prior to the fall, Straub had a history of back problems, admitting he had experienced sacroiliac trouble for approximately ten years.
- The Reading Company disputed the cause and severity of Straub's back injury, contending it was attributable to his pre-existing condition rather than the fall.
Procedural Posture:
- George Straub filed a lawsuit against the Reading Company in the United States District Court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- During the trial, the Reading Company's attorney made several motions for the withdrawal of a juror (a mistrial) based on the conduct of Straub's attorney, but the trial court denied these motions.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Straub for $10,000.
- The Reading Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with Straub as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's persistent misconduct throughout a trial—including improperly interrupting cross-examination, using leading questions, misstating facts, making personal attacks on opposing counsel, and referencing materials not in evidence—deprive the opposing party of a fair trial, thus warranting reversal of the judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - McLaughlin, Circuit Judge
Yes, the attorney's persistent misconduct deprived the opposing party of a fair trial. The entire pattern of the trial demonstrated a conscious and successful effort by the plaintiff's attorney to present a confused and distorted picture to the jury, which caused grave prejudice to the defense. The attorney repeatedly hampered cross-examination with improper interruptions and unsworn statements, used an excessive number of leading questions to effectively testify for his witnesses, and delivered a closing argument filled with misstatements of fact, personal attacks, references to a statement not in evidence, and prejudicial appeals to the jury. Because the trial court failed to control this behavior, the jury never had the opportunity to pass upon the whole case fairly. While the court also found that Straub's duties were sufficient to bring him within the coverage of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the attorney's conduct so warped the trial that the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes that an appellate court will intervene to protect the fundamental fairness of the trial process, even when a trial judge fails to do so. The court distinguishes between isolated improper remarks made in the heat of trial and a sustained, calculated pattern of misconduct designed to prejudice the jury. The ruling establishes a precedent that such a pervasive pattern of improper advocacy is not harmless error and can be grounds for reversal. It serves as a stark reminder to trial attorneys that zealous representation has ethical and procedural limits, and that winning at the cost of a fair trial is impermissible.
