Can't rehash side, top court tells ex-Arkansas doctor in appeal of $122.5 million jury award

In 2nd suit in ’09 bombing, convict Mann’s bid blocked

 In this Feb. 4, 2009 file photo, a West Memphis, Ark., police detective surveys the damage after a car owned by Trent Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas Medical Board, exploded as he was leaving home.
In this Feb. 4, 2009 file photo, a West Memphis, Ark., police detective surveys the damage after a car owned by Trent Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas Medical Board, exploded as he was leaving home.

Randeep Mann was not entitled to explain his involvement in a conspiracy to bomb the former chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.


RELATED ARTICLES

http://www.arkansas…">'01 murder charge stays; justices deny tardy-trial claim http://www.arkansas…">Ex-doctor's 2 lawsuits over care in jail custody tossed

ADVERTISEMENT

More headlines

Already serving a life sentence in federal prison for his role in setting up the booby-trapped grenade -- which seriously injured Dr. Trent Pierce at his West Memphis home in 2009 -- Mann had appealed a jury award of $122.5 million in damages to Pierce and his wife in a separate state court civil suit, claiming that he never got a second chance to tell his side of the story.

But in a 5-2 ruling handed down Thursday, the high court agreed with Pierce's lawyers, who argued that a Crittenden County circuit judge had correctly applied a legal doctrine stripping Mann of his ability to rehash arguments made at his criminal trial.

Prosecutors in the federal criminal case never alleged that Mann himself planted the grenade, which was rigged to explode when Pierce moved a tire he found leaning against his car on the way to work on Feb. 4, 2009.

Pierce was severely injured in the attack, losing an eye. Mann was linked to the attack because of his acrimonious relationship with the Medical Board, and investigators found a cache of grenades and machine guns at his Russellville home. At his federal criminal trial in 2010, Mann was found guilty of aiding and abetting the use of a weapon of mass destruction and was convicted of weapons and obstruction charges.

Mann's accomplices were never found, but were included as John Does in Pierce's subsequent civil suit alleging the tort of assault and battery.

The circuit judge found Mann liable for damages to the Pierces without a full trial because of the fact his involvement had already been determined in federal criminal court. A state court jury trial was held only to assess damages, which were set at $122.5 million.

With Mann locked up at a federal prison in Indiana, the Pierces are unlikely to recover most of the damages awarded to them, conceded Robert Cearley, the Pierces' attorney.

In their last remaining court battle, the Pierces have asked a federal judge to stop the government from seizing Mann's collection of historical arms and machine guns, valued as high as $2 million, so that they may be sold off to pay the couple.

In an email, Drake Mann -- of no relation to the former doctor he represents -- declined to discuss the state Supreme Court's ruling, saying he had yet to discuss the results of the case with his imprisoned client.

During oral arguments in front of the state Supreme Court in October, Drake Mann argued that a jury had never concluded Randeep Mann intended to cause harm to Pierce.

To convict Mann of using a weapon of mass destruction, the federal jury had to find that he intended to cause harm to "person or property," Drake Mann argued. But, the attorney said, in the civil court case, the Pierces' attorney was required to prove the bomb was intended to physically harm Pierce.

Several of the state Supreme Court justices expressed disbelief during oral arguments at the notion that Mann intended anything but bodily harm when he conspired to plant the grenade.

Thursday's majority opinion by Justice Robin Wynne concluded that the "natural and probable consequences" of Mann's actions were enough to make him responsible in the civil suit.

The opinion said the court was setting a precedent for applying the legal doctrine used to bar Mann from presenting his story in civil court. Previously the doctrine, known as offensive collateral estoppel, had only been applied in civil cases stemming from murder convictions, Wynne wrote.

The doctrine allows a judge to prevent arguments from being presented in civil cases if they have already been settled by a final judgment in a criminal case, if the issue in both cases is the same. Wynne cited other states that have already used the doctrine in non-murder cases.

"The Arkansas Supreme Court joined with the overwhelming majority of courts that would have ruled the same way," Cearley, the Pierces' attorney, said. "We were just a little behind the times."

Justice Josephine Hart, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Karen Baker, argued that the court had wrongly expanded the scope of the doctrine used against Mann by ruling the facts of his criminal case applied to the issue in his civil case.

"The majority appears to engage in speculation regarding which facts the federal criminal conviction turned on, and it wrongly assumes that the elements of battery -- harmful or offensive contact with a person -- were actually litigated in the federal criminal case," Hart wrote in her opinion.

Justices Paul Danielson and Howard Brill joined with Wynne's majority opinion. Justices Courtney Goodson and Rhonda Wood wrote separate concurring opinions, but neither objected to the majority's ruling on the use of the collateral estoppel doctrine.

Metro on 12/02/2016

Upcoming Events