Fairness Juries avoid unfairness arising from factual ambiguity Ignall 94 David J. Ignall (Associate, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, D.C. J.D., The College of William and Mary, 1991; B.A., Cornell University, of Qualified Immunity: Summary Judgment and Issues for the Trier of California Western Law Review: Vol. 30: 1987). “Making Sense Fact.” No. 2, Article 2. (1994). http://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol30/iss2/2 [Premier] If the court denies summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact on qualified immunity, the defendant has effectively lost much of the protection of qualified immunity. Nonetheless, the standard for summary judgment precludes the court from preventing the case from going to trial because the court may not resolve genuine issues of material fact on a The defendant should be allowed at trial to raise motion for summary judgment." nonetheless the defense of qualified immunity. If the defendant cannot raise the Some courts apparently disagree with this proposition. 4 defense of qualified immunity at trial, he risks having judgment entered against him on the merits even if the evidence at trial fails to show a clearly established right that the defendant violated of To avoid this potential which a reasonable person would have known, but merely creates a question for the jury concerning liability. unfairness, the court must determine whether the evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most would entitle the plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law as the law existed at favorable to the plaintiff, the time of the alleged violation; The problem if not, the judge should enter judgment based on qualified immunity. arises if the evidence of whether defendant's conduct was egregious enough to violate a clearly established constitutional right remains disputed at the end of the trial. 1 There are a number of possibilities in this situation: the judge could resolve the factual disputes that concern qualified immunity, the jury could resolve-with special interrogatories-the factual issues about both qualified immunity and the merits, the jury could resolve the merits without any consideration of qualified immunity, or the jury could be instructed only on qualified immunity.
Fairness Juries avoid unfairness arising from factual ambiguity Ignall 94 David J. Ignall (Associate, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, D.C. J.D., The College of William and Mary, 1991; B.A., Cornell University, 1987). “Making Sense of Qualified Immunity: Summary Judgment and Issues for the Trier of Fact.” California Western Law Review: Vol. 30: No. 2, Article 2. (1994). http://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol30/iss2/2 [Premier] If the court denies summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact on qualified immunity, the defendant has effectively lost much of the protection of qualified immunity. Nonetheless, the standard for summary judgment precludes the court from preventing the case from going to trial because the court may not resolve genuine issues of material fact on a motion for summary judgment." The defendant should nonetheless be allowed at trial to raise the defense of qualified immunity. Some courts apparently disagree with this proposition. 4 If the defendant cannot raise the defense of qualified immunity at trial, he risks having judgment entered against him on the merits even if the evidence at trial fails to show that the defendant violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known, but merely creates a question for the jury concerning liability. To avoid this potential unfairness, the court must determine whether the evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, would entitle the plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law as the law existed at the time of the alleged violation; if not, the judge should enter judgment based on qualified immunity. The problem arises if the evidence of whether defendant's conduct was egregious enough to violate a clearly established constitutional right remains disputed at the end of the trial. 1 There are a number of possibilities in this situation: the judge could resolve the factual disputes that concern qualified immunity, the jury could resolve-with special interrogatories-the factual issues about both qualified immunity and the merits, the jury could resolve the merits without any consideration of qualified immunity, or the jury could be instructed only on qualified immunity.
Premier-Debate-Brief-ND16.docx