2007 » March » The Florida Jury Selection Blog - Voir Dire

Archive for March, 2007

Juror Concealment – By A Lawyer!

A lawyer who was selected to serve on a jury failed to disclose a prior personal injury claim during jury selection resulting in the reversal of a plaintiff’s verdict at the request of a co-defendant. In Pereda v. Parajon, 957 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 3DCA 2007), the Third District Court of Appeal found that the lawyer, who is a shareholder in a large firm, clearly concealed her personal injury history. The Court wrote that is was “difficult to imagine that she did not think the questions posed by counsel applied to her,” and that, as an officer of the court, she had a duty to disclose her prior automobile accident and claim.

The Court stopped short of determining whether the lawyer’s concealment was intentional, noting that “a juror’s nondisclosure need not be intentional to constitute concealment.” The Court reviewed the standard three prong test in determining whether juror concealment should result in a new trial. Citing Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2002), the Court held that the complaining party must show: (1) the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case; (2) the juror concealed the information during questioning; and (3) the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining party’s lack of due diligence. The Court found that all three prongs were clearly established in this case, and ordered a new trial.

Add comment March 28th, 2007

Late Night Jury Deliberations OK’d

In a criminal trial the jury wanted to deliberate late into the night. The closing arguments were concluded at 9:20 p.m., and the jury returned its verdict shortly after midnight –Guilty. Earlier in the afternoon (around 4:00 p.m.), defense counsel had requested the trial be adjourned and resumed the next day so that the jury would have enough time review all the evidence. The trial judge asked the jury what they wanted to do and they decided to work into the night. Two jurors had to go to work the next day.

While noting its agreement with the general propostion that jury trials should not continue late into the evening, the First District Court of Appeal in Green v. State, 951 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1 DCA 2007), affirmed the jury’s verdict because the trial judge had asked the jurors what they wanted to do, and the court repeatedly checked their mental state to make sure they could continue with their deliberations. The Court distinguished the leading case of Ferrer v. State, 718 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) because in Ferrer defense counsel had objected to proceeding late into the evening on the grounds that counsel was too fatigued to serve as competent counsel and that he was not physically able to proceed. That was not the case here because defense counsel never argued that she was unable to provide adequate legal representation, and it did not appear that her performance was affected in any way by the court’s decision to proceed with the trial.

1 comment March 26th, 2007