Cockrell v. Ferrier, 23088.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23088.,23088. |
| Citation | 375 F.2d 889 |
| Parties | Hubert L. COCKRELL and Mrs. Hubert L. Cockrell, Appellants, v. George A. FERRIER and Melton Truck Lines, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
George S. Brown, Birmingham, Ala., Roscoe B. Hogan, Birmingham, Ala., for appellants.
Charles E. Sharp, Birmingham, Ala., Sadler, Sadler, Sullivan & Sharp, Birmingham, Ala., for appellees.
Before COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges, and ESTES, District Judge.
Each of the Cockrells sued Ferrier and Melton Truck Lines jointly for personal injuries received in an automobile accident. The cases were consolidated for trial and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
Although at the conclusion of the court's oral charge no objection was made by the plaintiffs, they now, for the first time on appeal, claim error in the court's charges. The plaintiffs assert that they were not afforded an opportunity by the District Court to object.
After notice of appeal was filed, the trial judge made and included in the record, over plaintiffs' objection, a certificate in which he described the events that transpired after his charge to the jury.1
The transcript discloses only that, after the judge charged the jury, he told them, "I am going to ask the clerk to get together the exhibits * * * and you may retire and consider your verdict," and that defendants' counsel then took exceptions to the charges. The Judge's certificate makes it clear, however, that at the time defendants made their exceptions plaintiffs were present and made no objections, and at that time the jury had not yet actually retired to consider its verdict, but rather was waiting on a stairway outside the courtroom in charge of the clerk. After the trial judge overruled defendants' objections, he instructed the clerk to take the jury to the deliberating room to begin its deliberations.
Plaintiffs contend that we are barred from considering what actually transpired because we cannot take cognizance of the trial judge's certificate. It is insisted that "The record on appeal cannot be varied, added to, or explained by, a statement or certificate of the judge before whom the case was tried." 4A C.J.S. Appeal and Error, § 779, p. 648; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. International Brotherhood, 1958, 40 Ala.App. 452, 115 So.2d 42; Scroggins v. Alabama Gas Corporation, 1963, 275 Ala. 650, 158 So. 2d 90; Montgomery Bank & Trust Company v. State, 1918, 201 Ala. 447, 78 So. 825. Even if these authorities stood for the proposition that the judge could not make the record conform to the truth by the certificate involved here,2 they would not control our decision for this is a "procedural" question and under Erie R. Co. v. Tomkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, and its progeny, especially Hanna v. Plumer, 1965, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8; Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 1941, 312 U.S. 1, 61 S.Ct. 422, 85 L.Ed. 479, and Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Wright, 5 Cir. 1963, 322 F.2d 759, we must look to federal law and not the law of Alabama to decide the question.
The first two sentences of Rule 75(d),3 relied upon by the defendants do not apply, for the parties did not submit any dispute to the District Court, nor was there any misstatement or omission from the record by error or accident. But Rule 75(d) goes on to provide that "All other questions as to the form and content of the record shall be presented to the court of appeals." Under this provision we are faced with the question whether the certificate of the trial judge should be included in the record.
Plaintiffs do not say, or even intimate, that the recitation in the certificate of the trial judge is in error or untruthful. Plaintiffs do not dispute what the certificate says — they just say that such a certificate cannot be made. We disagree.
The certificate here does not attempt to vary, add to, or explain any evidentiary matter in the record. It simply describes what physically took place after the jury departed the courtroom. The matters of whether the judge remained on the bench; whether the jury remained with the clerk on the stairs before going to the deliberating room; whether counsel were close enough to each other and the bench so that each could hear what the other said, and whether the judge was available in chambers during the jury's deliberation were germane to a crucial issue raised for the first time by the plaintiffs as a point on which they intended to rely on appeal. These are all non-evidentiary matters in pais that could not have been incorporated in the record other than by certificate. Plaintiff cannot now ask our consideration of their claimed prejudice and at the same time deny us a record that speaks the truth on the point involved. An appellate decision based upon a false record would indeed be a travesty. We accept the certificate as a part of the record.
Having had the opportunity to object before the jury retired to consider its verdict and having failed to avail themselves of it, plaintiffs may not now claim that the charges were erroneous.4
1 The certificate states:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hobson v. Wilson
...442 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1970).92 See, e.g., Holloway v. J.B. Systems, Ltd., 609 F.2d 1069, 1073 (3d Cir.1979); Cockrell v. Ferrier, 375 F.2d 889, 891 (5th Cir.1967).93 See Rogers v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Coop., Inc., 580 F.2d 1039, 1042 (10th Cir.1978); see also Maheu v. Hughes Too......
-
Delancey v. Motichek Towing Service, Inc., 27401.
...by the rule. Nowell v. Dick, 5 Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 1204; Guest House Motor Inn, Inc. v. Duke, 5 Cir. 1967, 384 F.2d 927; Cockrell v. Ferrier, 5 Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 889; Williams v. Hennessey, 5 Cir. 1964, 328 F.2d 490, 491; Pruett v. Marshall, 5 Cir. 1960, 283 F.2d 436; Williams v. Atlantic......
-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
...1 Nothing we say should be taken to mean that the record can never be corrected on appeal. See Rule 10(f), ARAP. Cf. Cockrell v. Ferrier, 375 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1967); 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 210.08(1), pp. ...
-
Nowell v. Dick, 24975.
...failure to give instructions will not be considered unless the party objects thereto in the manner provided by the rule, Cockrell v. Ferrier, 5 Cir., 1967, 375 F.2d 889; Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, 5 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 744. While it is true that in any case an appell......