 |
 |
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
ist counsel in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Miles v. State, 88 Md. App. 360, 594 A.2d 1208, cert. denied, 325 Md. 94, 599 A.2d 447 (1991); Davis v. State, supra, 93 Md. App. 89. Notwithstanding this enlarged function of voir dire examination, the Montana Court was concerned about the implicit injection into the case of the existence of insurance coverage and had to balance that against the right under that State's law to discover a basis for either a peremptory challenge or a challenge for cause. It noted a split of authority among the then-existing cases, some refusing to permit such questions, some expressly allowing them, and some leaving it within the trial court's discretion. In some of the cases, the Court observed, the allowance of questions of this type depended on whether a preliminary showing had been made of a clear likelihood of prejudice. In that regard, the Borkoski Court quoted from an Oregon case, Johnson v. Hansen, 237 Ore. 1, 389 P.2d 330 (Or. 1964), where such an inquiry was held to be improper. In reaching that conclusion, the Oregon Court observed:
"In the case at bar there was no preliminary showing of any fact that might have made relevant an inquiry concerning bias arising out of the relationship of verdicts and insurance premiums. Where a line of questioning obviously is going to open up prejudicial speculation, e. g., of a racial, religious, political or other emotionally charged nature, the exploration of which will manifestly incite similar speculation upon the part of listening jurors, counsel must be prepared to show the need which might make such inquiry relevant, or run the risk of an immediate mistrial. Insurance matters should be handled with the same safeguards. In the case before us counsel did not advise the court of the existence of recent institutional advertising, or of other current propaganda calculated to produce bias upon the part of jurors in the local court."
Johnson, 389 P.2d at 331, quoted in Borkoski, 594 P.2d at 694 (emphasis in Borkoski).
The Borkoski Court recounted that counsel for Borkoski did present evidence of "recent institutional advertising by the very insurance companies involved in the case; advertising carried in popular national magazines about the time of the drawing of the jury panel; advertising calculated to produce bias upon the part of jurors against awarding large amounts of damages to personal injury plaintiffs such as Borkoski." Id. at 694. Under that circumstance, the Court held, inquiry to discover bias should be permitted:
"When insurance companies inject the issue of insurance into the consciousness of every potential juror through a high priced advertising campaign, as has been illustrated in this case, they threaten every plaintiff's right to an impartial jury. . . . In such cases, it is only fair that attorneys have some means to secure this right for their clients. Liberal voir dire is the best means to this end."
Insofar as we can tell, the courts are still somewhat divided with respect to permitting this line of inquiry. Some courts continue to disallow questions of this type or find no abuse of discretion when the trial court does not permit them. See Bohner v. Stine, 316 Pa. Super. 426, 463 A.2d 438 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983); and cases cited in Borkoski, 594 P.2d at 692; also Russo v. Birrenkott, 770 P.2d 1335 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). Florida leaves it in the discretion of the trial judge, but it is important to note that Florida has abandoned its rule against the jury being informed of insurance coverage. See Purdy v. Gulf Breeze Enterprises, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1981). Other States that have permitt
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.
|
|