March 28, 2024
Archive

Ex-pool hall owner loses appeal to supreme court

PORTLAND – A former Lewiston pool hall owner, whose $650,000 verdict against a real estate company was set aside because of juror misconduct, lost his appeal Thursday to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

The justices agreed that there was sufficient evidence for Superior Court Justice Thomas Delahanty to order a new trial after the jury had come back with its award to Tommy Bureau in Androscoggin County Superior Court.

Just before the start of deliberations, Delahanty denied a motion by Del Gendron, David Gendron and Gendron Realty seeking a mistrial while expressing sympathy for the company’s argument that the jury was tainted.

On the final morning of the three-day trial, the jury foreperson notified the judge that one juror, during a break, said he knew one of the defendants and spoke ill of him, and that two other jurors agreed with the comments.

After conferring with lawyers for both sides, Delahanty interviewed jurors separately. He dismissed the one who knew the defendant and cautiously decided to go forward with the case.

In denying the mistrial motion, the judge said, “I am somewhat tempted to [grant a mistrial], but I do think it is also necessary to get a decision in this case.”

The eight-member jury then came back with its $650,000 verdict after deliberating for an hour and a half. Jurors concluded that Gendron Realty was responsible for the closing of Bureau’s Billiards in 1995 because it failed to fill him in on a pending construction project at the time he signed his lease the year before.

Bureau claimed his business was doing great until the state took 22 of his parking spaces and began construction on Lisbon Street, which forced him to shut down.

The defense maintained that the pool hall and nightclub was losing money from the start and that Bureau’s business failure was unrelated to the construction.

When the case went to trial a second time, the new jury found in favor of Gendron.

In rejecting Bureau’s appeal, the high court said Delahanty acted within his discretion.

“Although the initial possibility that the jury could remain impartial properly prompted the court to deny the motion for a mistrial, a more considered and deliberate reflection convinced the court that a new trial was appropriate.

“Far from an abuse of discretion, the court’s decision suggests a careful and well-reasoned approach,” the opinion said.

Correction: A shorter version ran in the State edition.

Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

You may also like