February 17, 2011
On February 16, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a defendant was entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to employ proper procedures when confronted with evidence of juror bias in
Thompson v. Gerowitz, Case No. 49A05-1005-CT-296. In its decision, the Court described the protocol that a trial court must follow if it is presented with specific, substantial evidence showing a juror is possibly biased.
less..
Thompson is a medical malpractice case in which two members of the medical review panel concluded that the defendant had failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care and that this had been a factor in the resultant damages. The matter proceeded to a jury trial. During voir dire, defense counsel asked a panel of prospective jurors if they had negative experiences with physicians or had sued a physician. One juror did not answer and this juror was seated in the jury. After being informed that she was in the jury, the juror said that she was a widow and had sued a doctor for negligence. The trial court concluded that there was nothing to be done and that the jury was a good one for both parties. After the trial, the jury entered an award for the plaintiff.
On appeal, the defendant raised issues related to his motion for judgment on the evidence, which the Court rejected. However, the Court found that the defendant was entitled to a new trial because of the potential juror bias.
Our analysis does not end there, however. We believe that Juror Odam's silence when taken with her subsequent statement to the trial court was specific, substantial evidence showing a juror was possibly biased. Dr. Thompson brought this issue to the trial court's attention in a timely manner. At that point, it was incumbent upon the trial court to conduct a hearing, out of the presence of the remainder of the jury, to determine: (1) whether Juror Odam's silence indicated bias or lack of disinterest; and (2) whether the hearing itself has created a bias in the juror. The court should then have allowed Dr. Thompson to challenge Juror Odam for cause, and should have excused her and declared a mistrial if bias was found to be present.
The trial court did not follow this protocol; instead, it denied Dr. Thompson's motions to strike, for a hearing, and for a mistrial based on its previous, albeit extensive, experience conducting jury trials. Although the trial court's rulings on these motions was a matter of discretion, the trial court was not permitted to disregard the established procedure or the distinct possibility of juror bias based on Juror Odam's own belated statement. The trial court erred by not conducting a hearing to address Juror Odam's alleged bias.
The plaintiff made various procedural arguments in order to preserve the jury verdict, which the Court rejected.
Whether Juror Odam's silence amounted to misconduct and whether she was in fact biased against physicians requires a more subjective assessment of the circumstances. We believe it would be difficult to assess the allegations many months after trial, and neither party requests the matter be remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the proper recourse is a new trial.
Trial attorneys should take note that a trial court's duty to conduct a hearing into a juror's bias or lack of disinterest is triggered if the trial court is presented with "specific, substantial evidence showing a juror was possibly biased." That standard was met in this case. If the juror is biased, then the juror should be excused for cause. A trial court's failure to follow this protocol may, as in this case, result in a reversal and remand for a new trial.
Lessons:
- A trial court must conduct a hearing into a juror's bias or lack of disinterest if it is presented with specific, substantial evidence showing a juror was possibly biased.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/142
