 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore11/3/1993
posed by the appellants' attorney, thereby prejudicing their cases for damages?"
Discussion
Appellants, helpfully, frame the issue clearly for us in their brief: "The only issue raised has to do with [the trial judge's] refusal to ask the Voir Dire requested by the Appellants." In Maryland, a trial court has "wide discretion in determining what questions should be asked on voir dire examination of jurors and the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse." Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc., 320 F.2d 45, 49-50 (4th Cir. 1963) (interpreting Maryland law); see also Casey v. Roman Catholic Arch., 217 Md. 595, 605, 143 A.2d 627 (1958); Davis v. State, 93 Md. App. 89, 611 A.2d 1008, cert. granted, 329 Md. 22 (1992).
Notwithstanding the very broad scope of the questions, which in their most particular form were addressed to tort litigation in general or any action brought against the City, appellants contend that the proposed questions would "determine that a prospective juror has such a bias or prejudice against the kind of claim [brought here]." Maryland courts have considered whether a court must examine jurors as to such attitudes and have responded in the negative.
In Kujawa v. Baltimore Transit Co., 224 Md. 195, 167 A.2d 96 (1961), the plaintiffs attempted to attribute a disappointingly low recovery to the trial court's refusal to propound the following question on voir dire:
"Have you read any article or literature or have you heard any discussion recently on amounts of verdicts in negligence cases, and, if so, have you formed any ideas with reference to amounts of jury verdicts?"
They complained on appeal that the question was "motivated by their desire to counteract what they characterize as a 'steady stream of indoctrination' flowing from the insurance companies to the public generally in such volume as to adversely affect jury verdicts in negligence cases of plaintiffs having honest claims" and that the court erred in refusing to ask the question. Id. at 201.
The Court of Appeals found no error. Noting first that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any prejudice, the Court observed that, "the interrogatory, assuming the subject of the inquiry was proper, was not so framed as to probe for the existence of cause for disqualification which is the sole purpose of the voir dire examination." Id. at 201. The Court explained:
"Even if a juror had formed or expressed an opinion as to the adequacies or inadequacies of jury verdicts in negligence cases, that fact would not have disqualified him. A juror to be competent need not be devoid of all beliefs and convictions. All that may be required of him is that he shall be without bias or prejudice for or against the parties to the cause and possess an open mind to the end that he may hear and consider the evidence produced and render a fair and impartial verdict thereon. Garlitz v. State, 71 Md. 293, 18 Atl. 39 (1880). Moreover, since the question was in the nature of a 'fishing' expedition condemned by us in other cases -- see, for example, Emery v. F. P. Asher, Jr., & Sons, Inc., 196 Md. 1, 75 A.2d 333 (1950) -- the denial of it by the trial court was clearly not an abuse of its wide discretion in the matter."
In Jones v. Federal Paper Bd. Co., 252 Md. 475, 250 A.2d 653 (1969), the plaintiffs contended that the court had erred in declining to present several voir dire questions to the j
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|