Law School Case Brief
Int'l Shoe Mach. Corp. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp. - 206 F. Supp. 949 (D. Mass. 1962)
There has been a total failure by plaintiff to adduce any credible evidence reasonably tending even to suggest, much less prove; that defendant or anyone acting on defendant's behalf improperly influenced any juror, any jurors, or the jury verdict entered herein.
Plaintiff called six witnesses in a vain attempt to elicit some evidence in support of the charge of jury tampering. The first two witnesses were interrogated only with reference to a prior mistrial. That incident was not relevant in any way to the charge of improperly influencing the jury that returned the verdict plaintiff now seeks to set aside. Plaintiff called its president Jacob S. Kamborian and Webb White, a partner in the brokerage firm of A. C. Allyn Company. Allyn was an employer of juror John J. Zani. Nothing in either Kamborian's nor White's testimony tended to indicate any improper activity whatsoever on the part of the defendant. Finally, plaintiff called juror Zani and defendant's employee Pfaff. It was revealed that Pfaff once visited Ally Company’s office. Zani corroborated Pfaff's testimony as to the reason for Pfaff's visit to the Allyn Company office, as to his reasonable exasperation at Babb's failure to effect the change that he had requested in his account several weeks earlier, and as to the fact that there was no discussion whatsoever of the case.
Based on the evidence presented did defendant improperly influence the jury verdict?
Zani and Pfaff were credible witnesses. There was no mention or discussion of or reference of any nature to the case involved herein by either of them. Additional weight were given to given to the identity of testimony because of the fact that all witnesses were sequestered prior to the commencement of the hearing, other than counsel. As to Ground One of plaintiff's motion, the court found and ruled that the statement contained therein, that 'it appears probable that the defendant improperly influenced the jury verdict,' is a reckless accusation by plaintiff against defendant, charging defendant with the commission of a Federal crime, which charge is completely groundless and without foundation on the record of this case. The court further found and ruled that there has been a total failure by plaintiff to adduce any credible evidence reasonably tending even to suggest, much less prove; that defendant or anyone acting on defendant's behalf improperly influenced any juror, any jurors, or the jury verdict entered herein.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class