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. […]

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 […]

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 […]

The Supreme Court has authorized the use of a revised preliminary jury instruction to be given by the Court to the jury before the start of voir dire. The revised instruction (FSJI 1.0) is much more verbose and will be less helpful in selecting a jury than the earlier version. It repeatedly uses the hackneyed phrase “fair and impartial” and eliminates the prior and better language of the earlier version requesting jurors to inform the Court and counsel of their “personal opinions” and “strong feelings.”

At the conclusion of Voir Dire, the Defendant wanted to strike four jurors for cause. The judge denied all the challenges. At least one of the jurors was questionable. On appeal, a new trial was ordered by the 4th DCA because “seating a single juror whose impartiality may reasonably be questioned is a structural error not subject to harmless error analysis.” In Dorsett v. State, 941 So2d 587 (4 DCA 2006). the Court noted that the […]