Topic: Appellate Issues

“Prudent Probing” During Jury Selection

A $900,000 plaintiff’s verdict in a rear-end collision case was reinstated last Friday by the Fifth District Court of Appeal even though two jurors had failed to disclose in voir dire that they had been injured and received medical treatment as a result of prior car accidents. During jury selection, plaintiff’s counsel asked THREE times whether anyone had been injured in a car accident, and specifically asked the entire panel “Have any of […]

February 12, 2008

Bloomberg Passed Up In P.I. Case

New York Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg returned to court for a second day of jury duty Tuesday, but was dismissed after attorneys passed him up while choosing a panel to hear a personal injury case. Bloomberg started his day in a courtroom with about 35 other prospective jurors. He was allowed to leave by early afternoon. Bloomberg spent most of his first day with about 40 others in a courtroom […]

August 9, 2007

Supreme Court Upholds Importance of Peremptory Strikes

The Supreme Court of Florida properly reversed a jury verdict in a case where counsel was forced to use a peremptory strike during jury selection on a juror who should have been stricken for cause. The jury verdict was reversed even though it was undisputed on appeal that the jury that ultimately decided the case was a “constitutionally impartial” jury. The Supreme Court held it is prejudice “per se” to require counsel to use even […]

June 22, 2007

Don’t “Accept” A Bad Jury

This week the 4th DCA reminds us never to “accept” a jury panel if it contains objectionable jurors. If you “accept” the panel after jury selection without renewing your objections before the jury is sworn, you will probably have failed to preserve your objections for appellate review. You should always renew your objections to the jurors on the panel before the jury is sworn. See, Glinton v. State, 956 So. 2d 497 […]

April 19, 2007

Flash!! — Juror Can’t Have Lunch With Key Witness During Trial

It really happened. After finishing his testimony, a key witness had lunch in the courthouse cafeteria with a juror on the case during the trial. He later told the Court their conversation did not include anything about the case. The Trial Court expressed multiple concerns but did not declare a mistrial.  The Appellate Court reversed noting the potential prejudice to the defendant from the improper contact, i.e. “none of us have […]

December 21, 2006


Contact Robert W. Kelley, Esq.