SJC hears argument in Robinson v. Marshfield over mixed‑motive instruction and verdict form

Summary

At oral argument in SJC13825, defense counsel argued the jury received an improper mix of mixed‑motive and pretext instructions and that an internally inconsistent verdict form requires reversal or a new trial; plaintiff's counsel countered that the record shows the town urged burden‑shifting and the jury’s findings on causation and damages support the verdict.

BOSTON — The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in SJC13825, Kevin C. Robinson v. Town of Marshfield, over whether the trial court erred by submitting jury instructions that blended mixed‑motive and pretext frameworks and by accepting a verdict form the defense calls internally inconsistent.

Jason Croddy, arguing on behalf of the town, told the court the defense believes "the evidence for a verdict for the plaintiffs was insufficient" and that "clear errors of law" in the jury verdict slip and jury instructions required either a defense verdict or a new trial. Croddy said the defense had repeatedly objected to what he described as a blended instruction and that the record included testimony and exhibits—such as the town administrator's contact with the state ethics commission and a contractor's “sham investigation”—that complicated the legal framework presented to…

SJC hears argument in Robinson v. Marshfield over mixed‑motive instruction and verdict form

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading