 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. Magana10/5/2005
Under Florida law, the test for determining whether a juror's non-disclosure of information during voir dire warrants a new trial utilizes a three part test. First, the complaining party must establish that the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case. Second, the complaining party must establish that the juror concealed the information during questioning. Lastly, the complaining party must establish that the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining party's lack of diligence. De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 1995).
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff has satisfied part one of the De La Rosa test in that any information regarding juror John Hill's prior involvement in litigation was material and relevant to his jury service. Plaintiff, however, has failed to establish that John Hill purposely concealed information during voir dire. The interview of juror, John Hill, revealed that his failure to mention the prior litigation involving his mother during voir dire was the result of his lack of understanding and/or inability to comprehend the court proceedings and/or the questions being posed to him. In addition, John Hill demonstrated his lack of comprehension by advising the Court and the parties during the trial that he was not following the litigation and/or understanding the evidence and testimony as it was being presented. Despite that information and the fact there were alternate jurors available, neither party requested that Mr. Hill be excused from jury service.
Plaintiff has failed to establish that juror, John Hill's, failure to disclose information concerning his prior litigation was not attributable to his lack of diligence. A juror's answer cannot constitute concealment when the juror's response about litigation history is ambiguous and counsel does not inquire further to clarify the ambiguity. Tran v. Smith, 823 So. 2d 210, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Information is only considered "concealed" by a juror on voir dire for purposes of the three-part test in determining whether a new trial is warranted if the information is "squarely asked for" and not provided. Birch v. Albert, 761 So. 2d 355, 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Plaintiff's counsel cannot establish that John Hill's failure to disclose information concerning his prior litigation was not attributable to his lack of diligence.
(Emphasis added).
The standard of review applicable to an order on a motion for new trial is abuse of discretion. See Hertz Corp. v. Gleason, 874 So. 2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999)). This standard of review equally applies under the more specific circumstances of this case:
The standard of review of a trial court's order granting a new trial because of juror concealment of information is abuse of discretion. Garnett v. McClellan, 767 So. 2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). If reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the court's ruling, then the abuse of discretion standard has not been met. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980).
Vanderbilt Inn on the Gulf v. Pfenninger, 834 So. 2d 202, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Furthermore, " s articulated by the court in [Roberts v.] Tejada, [814 So. 2d 334, 345 (Fla. 2002)], due deference is to be granted to the trial judge because it is at the trial level 'that the dynamics and context of the entire trial process can best be evaluated.'" Id.
"'A juror who falsely misrepresents his interest or situation, or conceals a material fact relevant to the controversy, is guilty of misconduct, and such misconduct, is prejudicial to the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|