Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
20. Which argument for the neighbor's attorney will obtain a reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict?
Another potential juror did not reveal that she had been assaulted 20 years earlier, believing that it was not relevant to her ability to be impartial in this case. The potential juror was not excused for cause. The judge seated the potential juror on the petit jury of 12 and the case went to trial. Two days into the trial, one of the jurors became seriously ill and could not continue with juror deliberations. After the case was fully presented, the remaining jurors deliberated. The verdict was for the woman and against the neighbor. After the trial, the neighbor's attorney learned that one of the petit jurors failed to disclose during voir dire that she had been the victim of an assault. The neighbor's attorney is considering what his best arguments would be on appeal.
A woman filed a personal injury action in federal court in State A against a former neighbor for assault and battery and sought money damages. The neighbor timely requested a jury trial. The court used voter registration lists to determine the jury array, resulting in a jury panel consisting of 90% women. During voir dire, potential jurors were asked the following question: «Have you ever been a victim of a crime that would be relevant to your ability to be impartial in this case?» As a result, two potential jurors were dismissed for cause after revealing that they had recently been victims of assault.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The Seventh Amendment requires that the jury and the pool from which it is drawn be roughly representative of the overall community. A well-accepted method of selecting potential jurors from the community is through voter registration lists. The jury should be an impartial cross-section of the community without systematically excluding any economic, social, religious, racial, political, or geopolitical group.
In the federal system, jury selection is governed by the Jury Selection and Service Act and, in civil cases, FRCP 47. The jury selection process is also called «voir dire,» which consists of oral questions by both sides' counsel to the prospective jurors. The questions are intended to discover whether a potential juror is biased and has connections with a party or any possible witnesses.
Any juror shown through voir dire to be biased or connected to the case must be dismissed on motion by a party. When a juror is dismissed for such bias or connections, his dismissal is said to be «for cause.» In addition to jurors dismissed for cause, each party may dismiss a certain number of other prospective jurors without showing cause, which is called a «peremptory challenge.»
A jury verdict may be set aside, and a new trial ordered, for certain kinds of jury misconduct, including concealing a bias or prejudice during voir dire. If, after the trial, one of the lawyers discovers that a juror failed to disclose information during voir dire that would have indicated possible bias, there may be a basis for a new trial.
The lawyer must show that:
(i) the juror «failed to answer honestly a material question» during voir dire; AND
(ii) a correct response «would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.» McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984).
Under this standard, the new trial motion should not be granted if the juror fails to disclose information because he innocently misunderstands the question.
D is correct. The neighbor's attorney has no argument that would obtain a reversal of the verdict or judgment as entered. First, voter registration lists are a common and valid way to determine a jury array, so the fact that the panel was 90% women is a red herring. Second, all jurors, including the potential juror with the undisclosed assault, acted in good faith in responding to voir dire. The potential juror who did not disclose her previous assault innocently believed that it was irrelevant to her ability to serve on the jury. Finally, in Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the number of jurors could not be reduced below six, and there were 11 jurors here.
A is incorrect. The court used a voter registration list to determine the jury array, which is a common practice. Given the commonality and acceptance of this practice, the neighbor's attorney would likely not prevail by claiming that the jury panel did not represent a fair cross-section of the community. This is true despite the fact that the panel ended up being 90% women.
B is incorrect. A new trial is appropriate if a juror failed to disclose information during voir dire that would have indicated possible bias. A proper showing of this type of failure to disclose requires that:
(i) the juror «failed to answer honestly a material question» during voir dire; and
(ii) a correct response «would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.» McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984).
However, if the juror fails to disclose information because he innocently misunderstands the question, the new trial motion should not be granted. Although a former victim of assault, the juror did not deliberately lie during voir dire and acted in good faith when responding to the voir dire questions. She misunderstood when she assumed that her prior assault was irrelevant to her ability to serve as a juror.
C is incorrect. It is permissible that the verdict was reached by only 11 out of the 12 jurors initially seated in this case. The twelfth juror was properly excused for good cause and the remaining jury still had more than six members. The federal system does not provide for alternate jurors, so it would not be an error for the court not to seat any alternates.