ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT