Andre hornsbys trial

He called the entire case "sad" and said while the evidence against the actor was overwhelming, he's still left with one unanswered question. Report a correction or typo. Related topics: chicago illinois trial jussie smollett verdict u. How you can help families affected by Bronx fire.

Son charged with murder in mom's machete death in Queens. Mayor open to NYC in-school testing consent change, remote option. African Americans can handle the truth, too. And we can give an impartial judgement on a case. Since his arrest, Smollett has denied faking the attack. While on the stand, the actor testified that he and Abel were in a sexual relationship before the alleged attack, a claim Abel has denied.

Smollett said he only texted the brothers about scheduling a training session that night and that he was truly attacked. Smollett's charges are listed as class 4 felonies, and he faces up to three years in prison.

He is free on bond while he waits to be sentenced, CBS Chicago reported. Eskridge, So. In these situations, a trial court may, and should, reduce or increase the amount of the verdict to reflect the amount to which the parties are entitled as a matter of law. Thus, the invocation of the trial court's authority under Ala. It is also well understood that in considering the adequacy or excessiveness of a verdict, each case must be determined on its own facts, and that neither the trial court, nor this Court, may substitute its judgment for that of the jury.

City Bank of Alabama v. Eskridge, supra; Hammond v. City of Gadsden, supra. Because the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the wrongdoer and to deter the wrongdoer and others from committing similar wrongs in the future, the proper amount of punitive damages rests largely within the jury's discretion. However, although punitive damages need bear no particular relationship to actual damages, they, nonetheless, must not exceed an amount that will accomplish society's goals of punishment and deterrence.

Maryland Casualty Co. Tiffin, So. Eskridge, supra; Roberson v. Ammons, So. What amount is sufficient to punish Green Oil Company and to deter it, and others similarly situated, from committing similar acts in the future?

Traditionally, the jury has been afforded a great deal of discretion in assessing punitive damages. Roberson v. Ammons, supra. The exercise of that discretion is, of course, subject to judicial review to insure that it is not the result of bias, passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive.

Eskridge, supra. The trial court in the case at issue found that the verdicts were in no way affected by bias, passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive or conduct. This Court has recognized, however, that even though a jury verdict may not be excessive because it is the result of an improperly functioning jury, it is possible for a verdict to be excessive even when it is the result of a properly functioning jury. See City Bank of Alabama v.

Whitman, So. The defendant's financial position is, however, a consideration essential to a post-judgment critique of a punitive damages award. Eskridge, supra; see, also, Hammond v. Bearing in mind that punitive damages must not exceed an amount that will accomplish society's goals of punishment and deterrence, it is possible for a jury to hear the evidence in the case, make findings of fact, correctly apply the law, and still, albeit unwittingly, assess damages that bear no reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of those goals.

Justice Jones recognized this problem in his opinion concurring specially in Ridout's-Brown Service, Inc. Holloway, So. The following could be taken into consideration by the trial court in determining whether the jury award of punitive damages is excessive or inadequate:.

Aetna Life Insurance Co. Lavoie, So. Evidence was presented to the trial court before it ruled on the Hammond remand. This included evidence of Green Oil Company's and the partners' worth.

Thereafter, the trial court found that the punitive damages award was excessive because of its effect upon Green Oil Company and the individual partners thereof. Thus, Green Oil Company overcame the presumption of correctness that attached to the jury's award of punitive damages.

I agree that the opinion correctly states the law on the factors that a trial judge may consider in reviewing a claim that a jury has awarded an excessive amount as punitive damages, but it does not address the question of what a jury can consider when determining the proper amount to award.