00-0915 Schultz v. Sykes, et al.

Listen to this article

“There are few, if any, functions of a circuit court more vital in maintaining its dignity or accomplishing the purposes of its existence than ensuring the truthful disclosure of facts. When parties attempt to influence witnesses to lie under oath, this at best interferes with the court’s ability to impartially adjudicate the instant case, and at worst can undermine both the opposing party’s and the public’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. For courts to effectively fulfill their role as impartial arbiters of justice, parties who come to the courts as either plaintiffs or defendants must have confidence that they will be treated fairly and honestly, both by the court and by the opposing party. Without such confidence, our commitment to the rule of law itself is threatened. Accordingly, we believe that a court must be empowered to protect itself from those egregious practices which threaten the dignity of the judicial process. Because an attempt to suborn perjury undoubtedly threatens this dignity, we conclude that circuit courts have inherent authority to sanction with dismissal a party who has attempted to suborn perjury from a witness. …

“Accordingly, because we conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion, we affirm its decision to dismiss Schultz’s case and award attorney fees as a sanction for her attempted subornation of perjury. However, because the circuit court also awarded attorney fees through appeal, we remand for a determination of those fees.”

However, where the court never mentioned the animal rights group that plaintiff served as president in its oral decisions but it nevertheless made plaintiff Schultz and the organization, ALI, jointly and severally liable, that may have been error. We do not believe that Schultz and ALI should be treated as one solely because Schultz is ALI’s president. …

“On remand, the circuit court must consider whether Schultz’s misconduct can be imputed to ALI. If the court concludes that the two appellants should be treated separately, then it must permit ALI’s surviving claims against Sykes and the Journal Broadcast Group to proceed to trial and ALI may not be held liable for the Journal’s fees and costs. If the court concludes that Schultz’s conduct can properly be imputed to ALI, then ALI’s claims may be dismissed and the court may hold ALI and Schultz jointly and severally liable for the Journal’s fees and costs.”

Dist IV, Milwaukee County, Wasielewski, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Robert E. Sutton, Milwaukee

For Respondent: John R. Dawson, James L. Huston, Paul Bargren, Milwaukee