 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Elliott v. Home Depot10/14/2005
jurors might hear and prevent them from being fair and impartial. Two jurors raised their hands, and both were later struck for cause. The remaining seven jurors did not raise their hands, even though the court gave them ample opportunity to do so. In the absence of any evidence that those seven jurors' opinions about pre-existing injuries were so fixed and definite that the jurors could not be fair and impartial, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to excuse them for cause.
The Elliotts cite our decision in Walls v. Kim, claiming that the court improperly attempted to rehabilitate the seven jurors. We disagree. In Walls v. Kim, a medical malpractice case, a prospective juror who was a nurse stated that she knew the defendant doctor, had worked with him before, and hoped the case would come out in his favor. "The judge then asked the `rehabilitation' question, to which the juror replied that she would set aside her preconceived notions and decide the case on the law and evidence." But the juror later reiterated that the plaintiff "did not start the case on an even footing with [the defendant.]" When plaintiff's counsel tried to question the juror further, the judge "cut him off and ordered him to move on to another question." We held that judges should not rely upon a favorable response to the "rehabilitation" question as a talisman to justify retaining a biased juror. In affirming our decision, the Supreme Court held that judges must not curtail voir dire questioning intended to ferret out bias.
Walls v. Kim did not forbid all inquiry into the extent and degree of fixedness of a juror's stated bias. In this case, the court asked questions designed to determine whether the jurors' opinions on pre-existing conditions were so strong as to prevent the jurors from being impartial. The court did not rely on the sort of lengthy, coercive rehabilitation questions that we have condemned. Nor did the court cut off inquiry into the nature of the jurors' prejudices. Although the Elliotts argue that their attorney was not allowed to ask follow-up questions, the record shows that counsel never sought such an opportunity.
Under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to disqualify the seven jurors in question.
Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|