We’re not exactly sure why, but the facts in State of Texas v. Treeline Partners, Ltd., No. from the Texas Court of Appeals just crack us up.

First, the court comes up with a definition of “lowball” —

In attempting to ask potential jurors whether they believe that the State “lowballs,” the State’s attorney properly inquired about whether the venire members held a preexisting bias or prejudice that the State underestimates property values. See WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY 801 (3d ed. 1996) (defining “lowball” as a verb meaning “to give an understated price, estimate, etc. to (someone), esp. without intending to honor it” or “to so understate (a price, etc.)”).

Slip op. at 7. Save that one for your briefwriting databank.

The case involved the State’s attempt to ask potential jurors and make arguments about whether they believed that the State lowballs eminent domain valuations. Now the State’s lawyer didn’t just conjure up this line of questions out of thin air. The property owner’s lawyer didn’t expressly suggest during void dire or closing arguments that the State did so, but (s)he sure did nibble around the edges, and in closing stated that the State’s “appraiser used ‘low ball numbers.'” Slip op. 8.

There’s more, and for a sense of what made this humorous to us, read pages 7-10 of the opinion, where the court delved into what it means to “lowball” and the property owner’s arguments that it didn’t really open the door.

Add to the mix the trial judge’s contempt threat without giving a real reason, and you have the recipe for reversal:

Treeline contends that the State “could have, but did not ask to further question” three specific jurors, and “the State had the opportunity to bring additional venire members before the bench for further questions.” The scope of this opportunity was as follows:

THE STATE: Your Honor, just for the record, I am not allowed to
ask –

THE COURT: If you try to do that, I will hold you in contempt of court.

This is no opportunity at all.

Slip op. at 10-11.

State of Texas v. Treeline Partners, Ltd., No. 14-14-00462-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2015)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *