A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
September 17th, 2008
During jury selection in a car accident trial, the defense attorney (who had been hired by an insurance company to defend the case), told the jury panel: “I’m a consumer justice attorney, and I represent John Hooks, a merchant marine, not some fancy company, not some conglomerate.” The plaintiff’s attorney immediately objected and moved for a mistrial since the defense attorney had been hired by Hook’s insurance company. The trial judge denied the motion for mistrial.
On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mistrial because the defense attorney’s “egregious” statement was misleading, and was “nothing less than an appeal to the jury to protect that individual from a harmful verdict.” The appellate court noted that because Florida law prevents liability insurers from being named as parties in car accident cases, it would be impossible for the plaintiff’s attorney to refute the misleading statement, and therefore the jury verdict rendered in the case was a “miscarriage of justice.” Hollenbeck v. Hooks, 993 So. 2d 50 (Fla 1st DCA 2008).
This excellent opinion deals squarely with an improper voir dire technique that some insurance company lawyers have been using, in one fashion or another, for many years. Hopefully, this opinion will put an end to these kind of misleading statements (e.g. “Do you all understand that insurance is not an issue in this case?”). The statement by the insurance company lawyer in this case was particularly offensive because of his attempt to disguise himself as an attorney for consumers.
Entry Filed under: General Voir Dire,Mistrial
3 Comments Add your own
1. Dan | October 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Thanks for your blog! I’m one of the few who enjoy jury duty and am learning a lot here. I also discovered today a new blog from someone apparently writing about her experience right now sitting on an active jury, and I’m looking forward to following it: jurorx.blogspot.com.
2. Brendan Lupetin | April 23rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
I have a trial practice question closely related to this subject.
I recently tried a MVA case in PA. I am a younger attorney and this was my 6th trial (only my second MVA case). The defense attorney in both his opening and closing repeatedly told the jury “the plaintiff is asking you to make this defendant pay her money” and “you are being asked to force the defendant to pay money.”
This was a very damaging statement but also seemed like a very misleading statement as well. This attorney was hired by the insurance company and it was the carrier that would be responsible for paying any award in the case. Technically, my client had sued the defendant personally but she was being indemnified by the insurance company.
What are my options here to minimize the impact of this damaging tactic that I expect to keep running into?
3. Chris O'Connor | April 24th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
The jury duty system is flawed and in need of work. It has been years since I last had jury duty, but as I recall the pay is about $15 per day.
I understand the logic of not wanting jury duty to be profitable, but $15 per day? Who can afford to do jury duty and take possibly a week or more off of work at $15 per day?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed