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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.