 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Johnson9/20/2001
eding, he was informed that Juror #8 had requested to speak with the court about missing the next day's morning session in order to attend the funeral of her goddaughter, who had died over the weekend. After the judge communicated the request to the parties, Young's counsel responded that excusing Juror #8 from further service would be an "an easy solution" to the problem that comes "from a higher authority." The court agreed, stating that, "I think we should do that because we are on a tight schedule and we can't recess for half a day to accommodate her, so I think we just got our easy out." Johnson's counsel asked the judge to "give her the opportunity that, should [Juror #8] prefer to be here rather than at her god-daughter's funeral, that she [have] that choice." The court did not respond to the request, but queried whether the parties needed to be present while he spoke with Juror #8. The parties agreed that they did not need to attend the meeting.
The judge next met with Juror #8 in his chambers. The judge began the discussion by stating his understanding that Juror #8 "need to go to funeral." Juror #8 responded that she did not need to attend but desired to do so and could return for jury duty immediately after the service. She also related that she had previously had temporary custody of her goddaughter for a four-month period and then stated that it "depends on how well I do the viewing tonight as to how well I do tomorrow." The judge then stated that he wished to excuse her from jury service to "free up emotionally" and allow her to attend to family matters. Juror #8 immediately answered that she wanted to remain on the jury and that she would forego attending the funeral. The judge then encouraged the juror to reconsider the wisdom of her decision. Although Juror #8 never asked to be excused in order to attend the funeral, she eventually declared that she would "go with whatever [the judge] wish ." The court then excused her from the jury.
After concluding his meeting with Juror #8, the judge joined the parties, counsel, and the jury in the courtroom and announced that he had excused Juror #8 from further service to allow her to attend a funeral and because the court "simply can't recess the trial." He did not inform counsel that Juror #8 had wanted to remain on the jury.
Ultimately, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for Johnson on the intentional infliction of emotional distress and VAWA claims. However, the jury unanimously found Johnson liable on the assault and battery claims, and five of the jurors awarded Young compensatory and punitive damages.
Following the verdict, Johnson filed a motion for relief from judgment/new trial based, in part, on the court's excusal of Juror #8, and the court denied it. In his order, the judge stated that prior to speaking with Juror #8, he had refused Young's request to strike the juror for bias. The court then stated that Johnson had waived his right to object to the excusal of Juror #8 by agreeing to allow the judge to meet with her alone. Alternatively, the judge concluded that he had acted appropriately because Juror #8 was emotional and "should not have been forced to choose between a funeral and jury service." This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Johnson argues that the trial court erred by excusing Juror #8 from the jury, and we must, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial. Before addressing the merits of this argument, however, we consider Young's potentially dispositive contention that Johnson waived his right to contest the judge's decision to excuse the juror.
I. Waiver
Young argues that Johnson waived his right to complain
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|