- 280 -
the videotape offered at trial, which showed that the handgun in
question had in fact fired during a drop test. On the basis of
this evidence, the District Court granted the plaintiff's motion
to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision ordering a new trial. The Court of Appeals
first held that Thompson's general counsel was an officer of the
court, even though he had not entered his appearance at trial,
because he had significantly participated in the case by
attending the trial, gathering information to respond to
discovery requests, and participating in the videotaping of the
drop tests. See id. at 1130-1131.
The Court of Appeals further defined fraud on the court to
include both attempts to subvert the integrity of the court and
fraud by an officer of the court, involving an unconscionable
plan or scheme designed to influence the court improperly in its
decision. See id. at 1131. In concluding that Thompson's
general counsel had engaged in a scheme to defraud the court, the
Court of Appeals cited the general counsel's role in providing
misleading and incomplete responses to discovery, as well as his
participation in the presentation of fraudulent evidence and his
failure to correct the false impression created by the testimony
of Thompson's expert witness. See id. at 1132.
The Court of Appeals went on to reject Thompson's contention
that there was no fraud on the court because the videotape was
not material to the issues in the trial. Although questioning
Page: Previous 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011