Caudell v. Halliburton Energy ( 2002 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________________
No. 01-40922
______________________________
BRENDA CAUDELL, Etc; ET AL,
Plaintiffs
BRENDA CAUDELL, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of
JOSEPH M. CAUDELL, (deceased)
Plaintiff - Appellee
VERSUS
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC; ET AL
Defendants
FMC CORPORATION, doing business as FMC Energysystems Group
Defendant - Appellant
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
No. G-99-CV-789
___________________________________________________
July 15, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, PARKER, Circuit Judge, and ELLISON*,
District Judge.
*
District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
1
PER CURIAM:**
I. INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff-Appellee Brenda Caudell brought suit against the
various defendants as a result of an accident in which her husband,
Joseph Caudell, was killed when a pipe parted from a valve under
high pressure. The case was tried to a jury. The jury determined
that the Defendant-Appellant, FMC Corporation (“FMC”), was 50% at
fault in causing Mr. Caudell’s death and awarded the plaintiff more
than $5 million dollars in damages. The damage award included $3.5
million for Mrs. Caudell’s loss of society and $1 million for Mr.
Caudell’s conscious pain and suffering. The district court
adjudged that Mrs. Caudell recover approximately $3 million from
FMC.
FMC appeals from that judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee
Brenda Caudell. FMC argues that the district court erred in
failing to grant a mistrial after the district court questioned a
witness.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the district court’s denial of a motion for mistrial
for abuse of discretion. U.S. v. Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d 1368, 1378
(5th Cir. 1993). In doing so, we consider the jury charge and any
corrective measures taken by the trial court to cure possible
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
errors. Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 740 (5th Cir. 2000).
III. DISCUSSION
Our role is to determine whether the district court’s
questions were so prejudicial that FMC was denied a fair, as
opposed to a perfect, trial. United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d
1072, 1086 (5th Cir. 1987). In making this determination, we
review the proceedings as a whole and consider such factors as the
context of the questions, the person to whom the questions were
directed, and the presence of curative instructions. United States
v. Saenz, 134 F.3d 697, 702 (5th Cir. 1998).
Rule 614(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits judges to
question witnesses. We have previously stated that a trial judge’s
questioning of witnesses is permissible if aimed at clarifying the
evidence or managing the trial. Williams, 809 F.2d at 1087.
However, we have also clearly stated that a judge’s questioning
should never evince or appear to evince partiality to one side over
the other. United States v. Davis, 285 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir.
2001). In short, “a judge’s discretion to question witnesses is
not unfettered. A judge cannot assume the role of an advocate for
either side.” U.S. v. Martin, 189 F.3d 547, 553 (7th Cir. 1999).
After careful consideration, we conclude that the district
court’s questions and comments crossed the line to the point where
a reasonable jury could question the impartiality of the trial
judge. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court
3
and remand the case back to the district court for a new trial.1
FMC’s request to remove Judge Kent from retrial of the case is
denied.
1
FMC raises several other issues on appeal. Because we have
concluded that FMC is entitled to a new trial, we decline to
address the other issues except to note that the district court’s
decision to allow the Garth Brooks song to be played to the jury
was reversible error. On retrial, the district court can allow the
video with the pictures of Mr. and Mrs. Caudell to be shown to the
jury. However, the audio portion of the video which included the
Garth Brooks song shall not be broadcast to the jury.
4