>>The judge gave us strict instructions that the defendant (Broward County) had admitted their guilt and that we had to find for the plaintiff.
First of all, the term is liability (rather than guilt) and second, the judge can’t do that except in a damages only trial. Jury instruction procedures vary by jurisdiction but in all cases, they will be disclosed to both sides prior to closing argument — likely before. Jury instructions more or less restate the law as it related to factual findings. There’s no way an attorney is going to let a judge give instructions to a jury to find for one side or the other. He has an easy appeal and likely a complaint to the judicial authority of that jurisdiction.
There is a possibility that, in your case, the Plaintiff had established liability of the defendant by something like a summary judgment motion — arguing there is no issue of material fact. Thus, the jury would hear evidence and award damages. But if that were the case, the judge would not have instructed you to find for the Plaintiff - he would have already done that. You would have heard evidence regarding medical bills, pain and suffering, etc. I can’t see any legit reason how a judge could ever instruct a jury on any actual finding of fact. Either you misinterpreted the instruction or the defense attorneys were all totally incompetent.
First, it was 15 years ago. I do remember distinctly the judge telling us that the liability of the county was not in question, so we had to find for the plaintiff.
Second, the lawyer for the county looked REALLY pissed when the judged told us that. It may have been improper.
Third, we did hear a lot about pain and suffering. The lawyer for the county was pretty sneaky about making sure we knew that the gold digger was his second wife, that they had been married for 30 years, and that he had divorced his first wife to marry her. She had been his secretary and was 20 years his junior. The implication was that she was trying to get one last pay day from her sugar daddy before he kicked off. The lawyer for the plaintiff didn't object to this line of questioning, which I found surprising. They produced photos of his busted up knee and tried to imply that his current Alzheimer's was a result of the hospitalization. We didn't buy it.