California Labor &
Employment Law Blog
Appellate Court Reverses Verdict Based On Judge’s Bias And Improper Influence
May 9, 2020

Appellate Court Reverses Verdict Based On Judge’s Bias And Improper Influence

Topics: Court Decisions, Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation

A California Court of Appeal recently put its foot down and called out Judge Michael Linfield—a current sitting judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court—for his bias and the prejudicial effect of his conduct on the jury in Brown v. The Regents of the University of California.

During jury selection in a discrimination case, Judge Linfield made a presentation expatiating on the history of the civil rights movement and imploring jurors to bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice and continue the work of Martin Luther King, Jr.  Then, during trial, he allowed Plaintiff to present evidence to the jury of wildly unrelated other examples of discrimination allegations that had no similarity to, or legitimate legal bearing on her case.  Finally, after the close of evidence, Judge Linfield allowed Plaintiff to revive a claim that he had already summarily adjudicated in Defendant’s favor.  After receiving a runaway jury verdict to the tune of more than $13 million, Defendant appealed.

The Appellate Court found that Judge Linfield’s conduct demonstrated personal bias for the Plaintiff and ultimately had a highly prejudicial effect on the course and outcome of the case, necessitating a reversal of the jury verdict and new trial.

In its opinion, the Appellate Court goes to great lengths to underscore the egregiousness of Judge Linfield’s presentation and its unavoidably prejudicial effect on the jury.  Not only does the opinion contain a detailed account of Judge Linfield’s presentation, the Court also attached the complete transcript of his statement to the jury.  The transcript is well worth the read for anyone interested in seeing how unfair and biased certain judges and juries can be.  Judge Linfield was not simply reciting historical facts and law to the jury.  His personal perspectives and experiences clearly serve as the backdrop for his oration.  And, to cap off the show, Judge Linfield recited from To Kill a Mockingbird where Atticus Finch tells the jury, at the end of a trial plagued by corruption and discrimination, “a court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men and women who make it up.”

Thankfully, the Court of Appeal concluded that, among other things, Judge Linfield erred by framing the case at the outset in prejudicial terms, allowing the jury to hear misleading commentary.  Although this case describes an extraordinary example, Judge Linfield’s conduct is not otherwise unheard of in the superior courts.  And, the effects of such conduct on jury members are real.  Hopefully, this decision will survive to serve as a deterrent against similar future presentations as well as a guidepost to courts of appeal.  It also serves as a good reminder to litigators to exercise their rights to disqualify assigned judges when appropriate.

About CDF

For over 25 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor

Robin Largent has a regular presence in California state and federal courts and has been lead defense counsel and appellate counsel for large and small California employers in litigation (and arbitration) ranging from individual discrimination and harassment claims to complex wage and hour representative and class actions. She also leads the firm’s appellate practice, having substantial experience and success handling appeals, writ petitions, and amicus briefs in both state and federal court on issues such as class certification (particularly in the wage and hour arena), manageability and due process concerns associated with class action trials, exempt/non-exempt misclassification issues, meal and rest break compliance, trade secret/unfair competition matters, and the scope of federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
> Contact   > Full Bio   Call 916.361.0991

Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP © 2020

About CDF What We Do Contact Us Attorney Advertising Disclaimer Privacy Policy Cookie Policy