Charles Pugh
Monday, 6:35 p.m. -- U.S. District Judge David Lawson ruled today that the former student's attorney can discuss in court that Charles Pugh opted not to show up to his own trial. Pugh's attorney had fought against that. The judge also quashed a subpoena by the student's attorney to demanding that Pugh appear for trial. Federal rules allow people not to show up for their trial is they live more than 100 miles from the trial.
______________________________________________
From Earlier Today
Former Detroit City Council President Charles Pugh has decided not to attend his own civil trial, which begins on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Detroit. A former Detroit Public School student is suing Pugh, who was his mentor, saying the ex-politician sexually harassed him and took advantage of his position of authority.
The no-show has become a contentious issue even though the law states that Pugh, who lives in New York, cannot be compelled to attend the trial if he lives more than 100 miles away.
William Seikaly, the attorney for the unnamed former student, has subpoenaed Pugh to attend trial, but admits in a court motion that he may not be able to enforce the subpoena because of the law that says Pugh does not have to attend.
Nonetheless, Seikaly wants to be able to tell the jury he subpoenaed Pugh and tried everything to compel Pugh to attend the trial, and that his absence should raise questions about his character.
"Pugh's deliberate decision to not personally attend a trial in which his conduct is at issue is reflective upon Pugh's trustworthiness and credibility as a witness," Seikaly writes in a motion filed on Sunday. "Such argument is entirely appropriate under the Federal Rules and other authorities."
Seikaly and Pugh's attorney Marc Deldin will be able to present Pugh's testimony during trial from videotape depositions. But because he won't attend, it poses some limits as to what Seikaly can do to undermine that testimony.
Pugh's attorney Marc Deldin has asked that the judge to quash the subpoena and says allowing Seikaly to talk about Pugh's absence to the jury would unfairly prejudice his case. If the judge dismisses the subpoena, Seikaly would not be able to tell jurors that there's a pending subpoena trying to compel Pugh to attend.
Seikaly writes in his motion:
"Pugh has chosen not to attend trial. True, he cannot be compelled to do so under Rule 45, but absolutely nothing prevented him from voluntarily doing so. Comment on his failure to attend trial would not infringe upon Pugh's constitutional rights. While it may have been his 'right' not to attend trial, absolutely no law exists to suggest that exercise of that right may not be commented upon trial."
"A major theme of Pugh's testimony is how his story has changed over and over again regarding the facts of this case. Significant time will be spent at trial presenting impeachment witnesses to disprove Pugh's inaccurate testimony to attack his credibility."
Pugh's attorney Deldin writes in a motion that the judge should quash the subpoena, saying the law affords Pugh the right not to attend his only trial if he lives beyond the 100 miles of trial.
He further writes:
A witness’s unwillingness to waive his right under Rule 45 and not appear in a distant locale is not relevant to any fact in issue. It is therefore inadmissible. Neither Plaintiff, his counsel, nor any other party should be permitted to make reference, directly or indirectly, to Mr. Pugh’s absence from trial.
Once the Court quashes the Subpoena, Mr. Pugh has no obligation to appear and permitting Plaintiff to make such statements would suggest that Mr. Pugh disrespects the Jury, the process, and the Court. Even if Mr. Pugh’s appearance was relevant, the probity that Plaintiff’s argument offers is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and could mislead the jury.
A subpoena cannot compel a person to appear for a trial, hearing, or deposition unless the place for appearance is within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, none of which apply to Mr. Pugh.
Pugh's attorney goes on to write:
This Court must quash the Subpoena and should also prohibit Plaintiff and his counsel from arguing or mentioning, at trial, directly or indirectly, Mr. Pugh’s decision to not waive his rights under Rule 45.
