Mistrial declared after man's eye falls out on witness stand
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - An assault trial over a fight that cost a man his left eye ended in a mistrial Wednesday when his prosthetic eye popped out as he was testifying, startling jurors.
John Huttick was weeping on the witness stand in Common Pleas Court as he testified about the impact of losing his eye in the August 2011 fight in the parking lot of a bar called the New Princeton Tavern, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Suddenly, the $3,000 prosthetic blue eye popped out. Huttick caught it and cried out as two jurors gasped and started to rise.
"I couldn't believe it just came out," Huttick said.
Judge Robert Coleman, who called it an "unfortunate, unforeseen incident," granted a mistrial motion by defense attorney Eileen Hurley. He scheduled a new trial for March 4.
A group of people including Huttick and defendant Matthew Brunelli had been drinking at the bar, Assistant District Attorney Mark Gilson said. Brunelli left with a girlfriend but got into an argument with another patron that turned into a fight in the parking lot, and when Huttick tried to separate the pair Brunelli threw a punch that hit Huttick's left eye, Gilson said.
Hurley said her client, who's charged with aggravated assault, struck Huttick with a fist, but Gilson said he "stabbed" Huttick with a metal key sticking out between his fingers.
Huttick, who's suing Brunelli, said that he lost his job because of the injury and that depression drained his finances and nearly broke up his relationship with his girlfriend.
"A year later," Huttick said, "I have no place to live, and I ran out of money."
John Huttick was weeping on the witness stand in Common Pleas Court as he testified about the impact of losing his eye in the August 2011 fight in the parking lot of a bar called the New Princeton Tavern, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Suddenly, the $3,000 prosthetic blue eye popped out. Huttick caught it and cried out as two jurors gasped and started to rise.
"I couldn't believe it just came out," Huttick said.
Judge Robert Coleman, who called it an "unfortunate, unforeseen incident," granted a mistrial motion by defense attorney Eileen Hurley. He scheduled a new trial for March 4.
A group of people including Huttick and defendant Matthew Brunelli had been drinking at the bar, Assistant District Attorney Mark Gilson said. Brunelli left with a girlfriend but got into an argument with another patron that turned into a fight in the parking lot, and when Huttick tried to separate the pair Brunelli threw a punch that hit Huttick's left eye, Gilson said.
Hurley said her client, who's charged with aggravated assault, struck Huttick with a fist, but Gilson said he "stabbed" Huttick with a metal key sticking out between his fingers.
Huttick, who's suing Brunelli, said that he lost his job because of the injury and that depression drained his finances and nearly broke up his relationship with his girlfriend.
"A year later," Huttick said, "I have no place to live, and I ran out of money."
I hope he wins this case... And I hope we see an eye for an eye... Or the cash value of said !
And wasn't this an episode of Boston Legal?
Â
Deja Vu:
Â
Kushfan1701 pts
Sure, it's all fun and games until somebody puts an eye out
 @WendyTeagarden I've got my eye on you kid.
MY EYE!!!!!!!
I've heard of an attorney objecting if you roll your eyes during court but this is ridiculous.Â
And a bit gross . . . Â
Man, this has been a week of losing body parts stories.
The judge really kept his eye on the ball.
Mistrial?
I bet the witness didn't see that coming.
"Mistrial my eye!!!"
I guess the judge doesn't put that much weight in eye witness testimony.Â
 @Kushfan I don't see the point.
@Kushfan But they didn't want to "witness the eye"
 @Kushfan The plaintiff only wanted an eye for an eye!
This comment has been deleted
 @negativerep His eye falling out could have been a sympathy ploy. It is possible that the plaintiff knew that if he cried profusely, he could cause his eye to fall out. He should be able to win or lose his case on the basis of simply having to use a prosthetic eye. If that doesn't sway the jury, he should lose his case.
 @felines99  @negativerep yeah, tear ducks could flood the eye socket and well the rest is all to do with hydraulics..In a matter of speaking..
 @lee986321 tear ducks? Like when they lost to Stanford?
@lee986321 @felines99 @negativerep Ok I'm sorry if this is wrong, but that would have been so funny, I don't think I could have controled myself, I would have been peeing my pants and laughing so hard they would have thrown me out.
 @felines99 Ah okay, that makes sense.
Â