Litigation is rarely a tidy or expeditious process. Parties to lawsuits generally are impatient and angry not only at the other party but at the plodding and often very expensive system. All of the problems seem to be exacerbated with celebrity litigants, especially when the subject matter is as lurid as it has been in the lawsuit, Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton, which was terminated abruptly (and surprisingly to many) when Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed Ms. Jones’ case as a matter of law.
How can it be that a judge is able to terminate the proceeding by granting summary judgment before a jury is even impaneled to hear the facts?
Bear in mind that the charge here had to do only with a very narrow issue: did Paula Jones suffer any kind of impairment in her employment because of a sexual harassment incident which she alleges occurred with then Governor Clinton? After the pleadings containing the basic allegations and responses were filed by both sides, the parties undertook pre-trial “discovery”. They responded in writing to various interrogatories; and then as the final step prior to trial the parties and many witnesses (including Monica Lewinsky – could we ever forget?) submitted to depositions in which under oath they were asked questions in the presence of all attorneys in the action and a court stenographer. All of these activities are intended to help the attorneys prepare for trial. Properly done, discovery gives each attorney prior to the formal trial a pretty good picture of the evidence the other side is going to present.
At the conclusion of discovery, it is not uncommon for each side to file a motion for summary judgment. In effect, the court is asked to look at the accumulation of all of the pre-trial data and make a final ruling without submitting to it to a jury trial. In order to grant such a motion, a judge must make a determination that even if everything one party says is proven to be true in the eyes of the jury, there is still insufficient evidence under the applicable law for that person to win. Here, Judge Wright ruled that even if she believed every bit of evidence that Paula Jones had produced (through her lawyers), the lawsuit had to fail and must be dismissed because she failed to meet her legal burden; under the circumstances a jury could not have rendered a verdict in her favor. Remember, the function of a jury is to make findings of fact and then to apply the applicable law as instructed by the judge.
There were other lawsuits Paula Jones might have brought involving the incident with the President, but they were all barred by the statute of limitations. She had waited too long, except for the sexual harassment/employment impairment action she filed. A number of legal scholars had said that her action was very weak, so the outcome is not shocking; what is surprising is that Judge Wright ruled now, before it went to trial. She might have let a jury make the decision but instead chose to spare the parties (and all of us) what undoubtedly would have been a lurid media event conducted in a circus atmosphere. Some are saying that the judge acted courageously (in a political sense) in “taking the heat” when she might have ducked it by giving the case to a jury with very strong instructions on how to rule.
A broader issue involves the ruling of the Supreme Court several months ago. The President asked for the lawsuit to be deferred until after he left office, alleging that it would become too much of a distraction for him to perform his duties in a normal fashion and that a fair trial would be almost an impossibility because of his high profile. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the case should proceed. It seems that the judges might have anticipated that the process would have degenerated as it did, and that in light it is interesting to ponder whether the same ruling will be rendered if the question is ever raised again. Putting aside the issue of whom the President might be, if the issue again arises, it would seem not to be an issue to be decided along political party lines. The country and the parties to the lawsuit probably would be best served by deferring any such litigation until the President has left office.
Is it conceivable that any sitting president would receive even-handed treatment by a jury? And what about legal fees? It is said that the fees in the present case run into the millions; if this were a garden-variety, non-celebrity lawsuit, the fees might be as little as 5% to 10% of that amount!
The evidence seems overwhelming; civil lawsuits involving a President will produce nothing but skewed results unless they are deferred until the President is out of office. The Supreme Court had a bad day.
How can it be that a judge is able to terminate the proceeding by granting summary judgment before a jury is even impaneled to hear the facts?
Bear in mind that the charge here had to do only with a very narrow issue: did Paula Jones suffer any kind of impairment in her employment because of a sexual harassment incident which she alleges occurred with then Governor Clinton? After the pleadings containing the basic allegations and responses were filed by both sides, the parties undertook pre-trial “discovery”. They responded in writing to various interrogatories; and then as the final step prior to trial the parties and many witnesses (including Monica Lewinsky – could we ever forget?) submitted to depositions in which under oath they were asked questions in the presence of all attorneys in the action and a court stenographer. All of these activities are intended to help the attorneys prepare for trial. Properly done, discovery gives each attorney prior to the formal trial a pretty good picture of the evidence the other side is going to present.
At the conclusion of discovery, it is not uncommon for each side to file a motion for summary judgment. In effect, the court is asked to look at the accumulation of all of the pre-trial data and make a final ruling without submitting to it to a jury trial. In order to grant such a motion, a judge must make a determination that even if everything one party says is proven to be true in the eyes of the jury, there is still insufficient evidence under the applicable law for that person to win. Here, Judge Wright ruled that even if she believed every bit of evidence that Paula Jones had produced (through her lawyers), the lawsuit had to fail and must be dismissed because she failed to meet her legal burden; under the circumstances a jury could not have rendered a verdict in her favor. Remember, the function of a jury is to make findings of fact and then to apply the applicable law as instructed by the judge.
There were other lawsuits Paula Jones might have brought involving the incident with the President, but they were all barred by the statute of limitations. She had waited too long, except for the sexual harassment/employment impairment action she filed. A number of legal scholars had said that her action was very weak, so the outcome is not shocking; what is surprising is that Judge Wright ruled now, before it went to trial. She might have let a jury make the decision but instead chose to spare the parties (and all of us) what undoubtedly would have been a lurid media event conducted in a circus atmosphere. Some are saying that the judge acted courageously (in a political sense) in “taking the heat” when she might have ducked it by giving the case to a jury with very strong instructions on how to rule.
A broader issue involves the ruling of the Supreme Court several months ago. The President asked for the lawsuit to be deferred until after he left office, alleging that it would become too much of a distraction for him to perform his duties in a normal fashion and that a fair trial would be almost an impossibility because of his high profile. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the case should proceed. It seems that the judges might have anticipated that the process would have degenerated as it did, and that in light it is interesting to ponder whether the same ruling will be rendered if the question is ever raised again. Putting aside the issue of whom the President might be, if the issue again arises, it would seem not to be an issue to be decided along political party lines. The country and the parties to the lawsuit probably would be best served by deferring any such litigation until the President has left office.
Is it conceivable that any sitting president would receive even-handed treatment by a jury? And what about legal fees? It is said that the fees in the present case run into the millions; if this were a garden-variety, non-celebrity lawsuit, the fees might be as little as 5% to 10% of that amount!
The evidence seems overwhelming; civil lawsuits involving a President will produce nothing but skewed results unless they are deferred until the President is out of office. The Supreme Court had a bad day.
– Ken Butera