New Trial in Ex-Medina Police Chief Jeffrey Chen Case: Judge Cites Attorney Misconduct

Not long after the separation of Medina City Manager Donna Hansen, after a long, drawn out legal battle between the city and former Police Chief Jeffrey Chen that resulted in a  $2 million dollar settlement, the city has been granted a new trial, according to court records.

According to the U.S. District Court's Western District decision by Judge Thomas S. Zilly, entered Friday, Aug. 23:

Having considered all of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” with respect to the jury’s verdict on liability as to plaintiff’s discrimination claims. This ruling also calls into doubt the verdict on liability as to the substantive due process claim, as to which the jury was instructed that, if it found Hanson’s action was based solely on race or national origin, it must conclude that Hanson’s action was arbitrary and lacking a rational basis. Instr. No. 15 (docket no. 321). Likewise, the jury’s verdict concerning punitive damages cannot stand. Defendants are entitled to a new trial on all of plaintiff’s claims.
The court also called into question the conduct of Marianne Jones, Chen's attorney, particularly with regard to testimony about alleged racial slurs that had been ruled inadmissible, stating:

To warrant a new trial, attorney misconduct must “sufficiently permeate an entire proceeding to provide conviction that the jury was influenced by passion and prejudice in reaching its verdict.”

The irregularities in the trial of this matter began right after Jones began delivering her opening argument on plaintiff’s behalf. Prior to trial, defendants successfully moved to exclude discriminatory statements that could not properly be imputed to either Hanson or City of Medina, including Knapp’s “Charlie Chan,” “smiling Chinaman,” and “cottonpicking” remarks, Skinner’s “Asians don’t make good managers” comment, Biglow’s “Harry Potter” parody, Paulman’s stated refusal to “talk to Orientals,” and Jordan’s observation about Asians having “small ones.”

The order argues that Jones violated these stipulations, repeated such phrases several times, "repeating the “Charlie Chan” statement three different times."

The decision goes on to cite instances where these issues were allegedly improperly introduced by Jones, and the court ruled that,
 
"At oral argument on the pending motion for a new trial, defendants’ counsel postulated that, given the weakness of plaintiff’s case, the jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff’s favor only because it was improperly influenced by Jones’s misconduct. TheCourt declines to reach so sweeping a conclusion, but agrees with the basic premise thatJones’s behavior must be viewed through a lens that also considers the weakness of plaintiff’s case on liability and the excessiveness of the jury’s award of front pay on plaintiff’s state law discrimination claim. In light of the evidence that was properly before the jury, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s counsel’s misconduct had an inappropriate effect on the jury’s decision."

The court ordered a new trial on Friday, Aug. 23, for the stated reasons. The decision reads:

Defendants’ motion for a new trial, docket no. 361, is GRANTED;(2) The Verdict, docket no. 325, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, docket no. 344, and Judgment, docket no. 345, are VACATED;(3) Plaintiff’s motion for costs, docket no. 350, and motion for attorney fees, docket no. 365, are STRICKEN without prejudice;