SOMERVILLE — Cobble Hill Center LLC secured a $27.92 million judgment after the Somerville Redevelopment Authority (SRA) seized its four-acre property through eminent domain for a new public safety building. The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently upheld the ruling, rejecting the SRA’s argument that remarks made by Cobble Hill’s counsel during closing statements were prejudicial and influenced the jury’s verdict.
The dispute originated when Cobble Hill filed a complaint on September 11, 2019, seeking compensation for the SRA’s taking of its property. According to the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruling, the key issue in the May 2023 jury trial was determining the property’s fair market value. During closing arguments, Cobble Hill’s counsel argued that the government treated his client unfairly, asking jurors to reflect on their own experiences:
He stated, “The great thing about our jury system is, you know, anyone can be held accountable. Even the government can be held accountable.” He further asked, “How does the government treat you? What’s your common experience about how the government treats its citizens? Are they fair? Are they unfair?”
The Somerville Redevelopment Authority (SRA) objected, arguing that these remarks by Cobble Hill’s counsel unfairly appealed to anti-government biases and requested a curative instruction. “Curative instructions” are directions a judge gives to a jury to correct or “cure” the impact of potentially prejudicial statements made during a trial.
The judge responded stating that he would restate his initial instruction to the jury – that the case focused solely on the property’s fair market value – and added the curative instruction telling the jury not to “let personal feelings, emotions, or prejudice influence” influence their decision.
Get a banner ad for just $20/month or a video ad for $25/month—both options are flexible and can be canceled anytime. Since our launch in 2022, News Link Live has reached over 1.1 million viewers throughout Massachusetts and beyond. Contact us at newslinklivealerts@gmail.com or click the button below to get started.
The jury returned a verdict in Cobble Hill’s favor, awarding $35.3 million. This was later adjusted to $27.92 million after factoring in the pro tanto payment—the initial payment of $8,778,000 made by the City of Somerville when it acquired the property—and adding $1,391,554.14 in prejudgment interest.
The SRA filed for a new trial, claiming the remarks had improperly influenced the jury, but the motion judge—who also presided over the trial—denied the request. On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial, affirming the lower court’s decision and the award.
