Thread: WA: High state court: Letting jurors know man's immigration

April 15, 2010
High state court: Letting jurors know man's immigration status hurt his lawsuit
Injured Seattle worker wins at state Supreme Court in 7-2 decision

By LEVI PULKKINEN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Reversing a lower court ruling, the state Supreme Court found Thursday that an injured construction worker's immigration status should not have been brought up during a civil trial.

That Seattle-area resident Alex Salas was an undocumented Mexican immigrant when he fell from a scaffold while working on a Northgate condo complex ought not have been brought up during a jury trial in King County Superior Court, the high court found in a 7-2 decision.

"We hold that, with regard to lost future earnings, the probative value of a plaintiff's undocumented status, by itself, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice," Justice Mary E. Fairhurst wrote for the majority. "The trial court's decision to admit evidence of Salas' immigration status was an abuse of discretion."

Salas, a Charter Construction employee, was climbing a scaffold built by Hi-Tech Erectors when he slipped and fell 20 feet to the ground. He was severely injured in the fall and sued Hi-Tech in 2004, alleging negligence.

In preliminary hearings, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Hayden found the ladder did not meet code requirements but declined to award damages before trial.

Jurors ultimately found Hi-Tech was negligent, but ruled the negligence did not cause Salas' injuries. the state Court of Appeals later upheld the judge's decision to allow present Salas' immigration status to the jury.

Though Hayden said that jurors might be "so hung up on the immigration issue that they would really take it out on him," he deemed the information should be allowed so that jurors could properly estimate Salas' future earning had he not been injured.

Writing for the high court, Fairhurst said Hayden erred in when he failed to weigh the prejudicial effect of Salas' immigration status against its relevance to the jury's decision on financial compensation.

Fairhurst noted that Salas' immigration status was the only evidence suggesting he would be deported. Of the estimated 11.6 million unauthorized immigrants living in country in 2008, she said, Department of Homeland Security statistics show fewer than 1 percent of them were deported that year.

"Salas has resided in the United States since 1989 and has lived here without a visa since 1994. He has worked, purchased a home, and had three children in the United States," Fairhurst wrote for the majority. "Based solely on his immigration status, the risk of Salas being deported is exceptionally low."

To describe the risk of that such information would play to jurors' prejudices, Fairhurst quoted a California judge ruling on a similar issue there.

Some jurors, the California judge said, "feel that anyone that comes into this fine country illegally, even for the motive of working (is) running the risk of getting injuries. He's running the risk of getting injured on any job (and) if he is injured outside the system, tough. That's (his) problem."

Joined in the dissent by Justice James M. Johnson, Justice Gerry L. Alexander argued that the majority was mistaken in finding that Hayden had abused his discretion in ruling Salas' immigration status admissible.

"Although another trial judge here might have declined to admit evidence of Salas' immigration status, I cannot say that the trial court's decision to admit it was manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds," Alexander wrote in the dissent. "Neither can I say that it was a decision that no reasonable judge would have made."

The court's decision reverses the Court of Appeals ruling and may result in a new trial for Salas.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418512_supremes15.html

What is wrong with these judges? This guy is (a) in the country illegally, (b) working when he is not allowed such employment -- did he steal or make up a fake SSN? (c) has apparently conned a U.S. bank out of a mortgage and (d) apparently does not understand safety regulations enough, but sure understands how to sue for damages.
And his immigration status is "prejudicial?" Yeah, as a jury member, I would want to know everything about the person bringing the case!

His future earnings should have been calculated by the court/jury based on his theoretical earnings prospects in Mexico. There's plenty of economic literature/stats from which a calculation can be imputed to the same degree of accuracy as it can be imputed for a citizen worker of X age and Y occupational qualifications.

As to admissabilty of immigration status, SCOTUS has already ruled that illegal aliens are ineligible to receive punitive damages IN ANY KIND OF TORT ACTION, thus it would seem that the door is open to inquire about the immigration status of a plaintiff in a tort action.

I recently got out of jury duty for a similar reason. In CA Superior Court there is a list of 25 questions regarding your dispostion and experience as a potential jurist on criminal cases that you are permitted to answer out loud in the open courtroom during screening.

These two were my objections:

1. Do you have any feelings or predisposition for or against the defendant based on what you believe to be his/her race, national origin or religion?

2. Would you be inclined to believe or disbelieve witnesses or attorneys based on their race, national origin or religion?

I answered "yes" to both question and explained that I was against illegal immigration (breaking the greater federal immigration law, high costs to taxpayers, lack of law enforcement, etc.) The judge said "I understand you are against illegal immigration but what does that have to do with this trial?" I said "this woman (a Latino) cannot even speak English and needs an interpreter for the trial. You will not say whether she is legal or now will you?" The judge said "no, I will not." Then I said then "I cannot take that chance so no, I cannot be fair and impartial for this trial." Then the judge told me to report the following day for a different trial and excused me from the courtroom. (There were no trials scheduled that next day when I showed up.)

I will not succumb to this kind of sanitized, misplaced justice. The woman shouldn't have been in this country in the first place and I won't serve on a jury unless it is for an American citizen.