COA: Juror bias should have been examined

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for a surgeon accused of medical malpractice during a stem cell collection procedure in which the patient died, finding that the trial court didn’t follow protocol in examining a potential juror’s impartiality and deciding whether to strike that person from the jury pool.

In its decision today in James M. Thompson, D.O. v. Amy Gerowitz, et al., No. 49A05-1005-CT-296, the appellate panel affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision by Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer. The case involved a 2008 procedure when Martin Gerowitz died while Dr. James Thompson was collecting stem cells. After the death, Gerowitz’s spouse sued for wrongful death and the matter went to trial in April 2010.

During the voir dire process, attorneys questioned the panel of prospective jurors collectively about whether anyone had any life experiences that might hinder them from being fair and impartial. The one juror in question, juror Odam, didn’t respond to any of those collective questions, but after the trial judge selected the juror pool and alternates, she raised a concern about how her husband had died and she’d tried to pursue a negligence action against the doctor. The trial court judge referenced the 250 jury trials he’s presided over during the years when examining the jury, and declined a motion to strike that juror in question after the doctor’s attorney argued an individual questioning of that person should have been done to further examine the issue.

Judge Dreyer also declined other motions relating to causation and the evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of $420,000 in the widow’s favor.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial on the motion for judgment on the evidence and causation, but remanded and ordered a new trial because of the juror misconduct and bias allegations that had been raised.

Analyzing the transcript, the appellate panel wasn’t convinced that the juror’s silence could be equated with “concealment” and rise to the level of juror misconduct, but it went further to look at the bias evidence and how Judge Dreyer handled the issue and ultimate jury lineup. The trial judge should have followed the practice of allowing the doctor to challenge that juror for cause and then excuse her and declare a mistrial as caselaw dictates.

“The trial court did not follow this protocol; instead, it denied Dr. Thompson’s motions to strike, for a hearing, and for a mistrial based on its previous, albeit extensive, experience conducting jury trials,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote for the unanimous panel. “Although the trial court’s rulings on these motions was a matter of discretion, the trial court was not permitted to disregard the established procedure or the distinct possibility of juror bias based on Juror Odam’s own belated statement. The trial court erred by not conducting a hearing to address Juror Odam’s alleged bias.”

The judges rejected arguments by Gerowitz’s attorneys that the point about potential bias was waived because counsel didn’t expose it during the collective voir dire examination, or that the doctor’s counsel should have used a peremptory challenge to strike that juror. The panel determined evidence didn't show a more detailed examination should have been done during jury selection, and the argument about exhausting peremptory challenges is misplaced.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?