ILNews

COA orders hearing to determine juror bias against plaintiff

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court should have ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a juror in an auto accident case was biased against the plaintiff instead of ordering a new trial regarding damages.

Larry Clemons sued Lloyd Diehl for damages after an auto accident in which Diehl admitted to rear-ending Clemons’ car. Diehl denied that the collision caused Clemons any damages.

After a two-day trial, the court awarded Clemons zero dollars in damages. Clemons filed a motion to correct error, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 59(A). He alleged that Juror No. 289 had committed misconduct when he failed to state on his juror questionnaire that nearly 12 years earlier he had been a defendant in a civil lawsuit that arose from a vehicular collision.

The trial court agreed with Clemons, concluding the juror was biased or prejudiced against Clemons because the juror had been named as a civil defendant in a prior auto accident case and Clemons’ counsel, unaware of the previous case, during voir dire spoke favorably of the attorney who had represented the plaintiff in the juror’s case. The court ordered a new trial on the question of damages.

In Lloyd J. Diehl v. Larry J. Clemons, 45A04-1309-CT-460, the appeals court reversed. The judges agreed with Diehl that the trial court’s order fails to explain sufficiently why the jury verdict must be set aside as inadequate.  They noted that the trial court order failed to seriously address the litany of evidence brought forth by Diehl’s counsel in his cross-examination of Clemons’ witnesses. The trial court’s failure to assess this and other opposing evidence and relate it to the question of damages is reversible error.

The judges agreed that Juror No. 289’s response on the questionnaire failed to disclose a material fact, which concealed a potential source of bias against Clemons. But the possibility of bias or prejudice alone is not enough to set aside a jury verdict.

The trial court should have ordered an evidentiary hearing instead of ordering a new trial based on juror misconduct, the COA ruled.

The judges remanded with instructions for the court to hold this evidentiary hearing to determine whether Juror No. 289 was in fact biased or prejudiced against Clemons.
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT