A judge presiding over a personal injury case erred by not specifically instructing the jury that it could consider whether a fact witness may have been influenced by a $10,000 payment he received for an afternoon’s testimony for the defense, a state appeals panel has ruled. The court found, however, that a new trial was not warranted.
“Just as a jury that hears testimony in a criminal trial from a witness who is testifying in exchange for a promise of leniency is given a specific instruction regarding the possibility of bias, we conclude that, in light of the important public policy considerations concerning fees paid to fact witnesses, more than the general credibility charges is also warranted where, as here, a reasonable inference can be drawn that a fact witness has been paid an amount disproportionate to the reasonable value of his or her lost time,” Justice Peter B. Skelos (See Profile) wrote for a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Caldwell v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, 2009-04955, 2009-06262.
