An appellate court can reverse the verdict of a jury only if it “reaches a result that is illogical, implausible, or without support in the inferences that may be drawn from the record.” Most appeals are made with a claim that the trial judge misapplied the law somehow. Here, Officer Dondi made no claim that the judge made a legal error; rather she argued that there was no evidence to support the jury's verdict. Specifically, she contended that neighbor Helen's testimony—which is the only evidence that supported the jury's verdict—is not entitled to any weight, because it is inconsistent with the physical evidence that was presented at trial.
Although Helen’s testimony differed from Officer Dondi’s version of the events, none of the physical or documentary evidence or expert testimony provided incontrovertible proof that Helen’s version of the incident—that Officer Dondi shot Hung in the back when Hung was not threatening Officer Dondi—was impossible. Despite some inconsistencies in the details of Helen's testimony, her testimony nonetheless provided substantial evidence upon which the jury could have reached its verdict.
The Court of Appeals declined to assess Helen's credibility on appeal, saying, “It is not the courts' place to substitute our evaluations for those of the jurors. Our role is not to overturn the verdict merely because the jury could have reached the opposite conclusion based on the evidence.”
The $11 million verdict stands. Lam v. City of San Jose, decided September 5, 2017.
These are real appellate court cases that boil down to a specific Burning Legal Question. The dialogue is my conception of what the attorneys might have said, not necessarily the actual arguments. At the end of each case there is a link to the Smoldering Legal Answer - what the judges actually decided.
